South Africa's police was corrupted.
This is the record.

“short of someone raising a complaint or escalating to my office that in this team I am not getting access to documents, I will not be aware that these documents that are given are not shared”

“I work on the assumption that once all documents, approvals and authorities are given to the team, the team accesses it all”

“at no stage during that process do you satisfy yourself that your investigator has seen the section 27 referral”

“Are you saying that Chief Investigator Perumal said to you that Colonel Padayachee was provided with a copy of the section 27 referral?”

“I pose this question specifically to this particular witness because she happens to be a lawyer and advocate over 30 years and they handle these matters, I take it, on the regular. I thought she might be able to shed some light”

“the rights the witness seems to assert would appear on my reading to be greater than the rights afforded persons that are interviewed by the Investigating Directorate”

“I thought the third statement speaks to self-incrimination, which is, as we know, a completely different concept.”

“Our 3(4) when I say our, I mean Commission’s Act, gives a witness protection not to reveal matters that are the subject of discussion with their legal representative.”

“they should be read conjunctively to get to a position where a witness may invoke a right against self-incrimination”

“section 6 will cross-refer you to this section 3(4) referencing the privilege applicable to anyone, I think, in a Mag Court”

“Is it 3(4) that applies, or is it section 6? Because my 3(4) deals with witness fees and privilege and other things, but the equivalent of this, I see it in section 6 of the Commission’s Act.”

“I just wanted to understand from the ID whether is it the same right, or does the Commission's Act afford greater rights than the NPA Act does to those who are summoned by the Investigating Directorate to answer questions?”

“witnesses that are interviewed... by the Investigating Directorate cannot refuse to answer questions on the basis that they would tend to expose themselves to a criminal charge subsequently”

“That is the comparison I seek to make, which is what the Commission's Act also provides in respect of witnesses.”

“10(b) and (c) below provide any person who has been summoned to appear before the ID... (a) is without sufficient cause, fails to appear, fails: (b) At his appearance, fails to produce a document requested, having been sworn or having made an affirmation, fails to answer fully and to the best of his ability any question lawfully put to him or her.”

“No evidence regarding any questions and answers contemplated in paragraph (a) shall be admissible in any criminal proceedings except in criminal proceedings where the person concerned stands trial on a charge contemplated in 10(b) and (c).”

“do we land at a place where those that IDAC interviews and questions are in a different position to witnesses, including yourself, appearing here today?”

“provided that such a person shall not be entitled to refuse any answer, to answer any question upon the ground that the answer would tend to expose him or her to a criminal charge.”

“The law regarding privilege as applicable to a witness summoned to give evidence in a criminal case in a Magistrate's Court shall apply in relation to the questioning of a person in terms of subsection (6)”

“the persons that you question during the course of investigation may not refuse to answer a question upon the ground that the answer would tend to expose him or her to a criminal charge.”

“I understood that is the rules under which the Commission does operate, and so there is no blanket, but it is on a question by question.”

“That is correct, because I understood that is the rules under which the Commission does operate, and so there is no blanket, but it is on a question by question.”

“questions may be put to you, and in response to each question, you then get to decide whether you invoke your right against self-incrimination.”

“you invoke your right against self - incrimination in response to specific questions, not that questions can be put to you.”

“our understanding is you are not invoking a blanket ban on dealing with the issues that are reflecte d in CJC368, the documents that you say you omitted to deal with.”

“should I be required to answer questions flowing from this affidavit and other matters in respect of which it has been determined that I would be of assistance to the Commission, the usual, subject to timeous notice and the right to legal representation, I would be willing to make myself available for such.”

“I have since approached my doctor for the preparation of what I believe is a medical certificate that would be acceptable to the Commission for its details of what led to me being indisposed.”

“I accordingly place this affi davit before the Commission to preserve my constitutional rights, to avoid any further prejudice arising from parallel prosecutorial processes.”

“In summary, apart from correcting the errors identified above, this affidavit records my response to the Commission's latest notice, confirms that the allegations against me are already before the NPA for a prosecutorial decision, asserts my constitutional and statutory right against self-incrimination.”

“For these reasons, this affidavit is submitted to place my position in regard to the testimony of the witnesses identified above formally before the Commission.”

“I hold the view that the Commission's fact-finding mandate does not override my constitutional protection against self - incrimination under any circumstances.”

“Thus, when I testify on those matters, should I be called upon to I will exercise my right not to incriminate myself under section 35(3)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa read with section 3(4) of the Commission's Act of 1947.”

“if the witness can clarify whether the concern she expressed before dealing with her third statement has been addressed”

“She has also pointed to us documents that she had, but had forgotten to bring them to our attention when we prepared the statement that was filed yesterday.”

“The issues that Advocate Johnson addresses in her third statement are the start of the exhibit file, which is from page 1”

“I am able to point out now that we have got the physical bundle, from what page to what page have we not been able to talk to Ms Johnson about”

“May I suggest this perhaps? It might assist you. You recall during the course of consultation, File 1 of the exhibit bundle was shared with us.”

“And if I could just take a minute to – if I could confer with my counsel through you, Commissioner, just to see if they were able to get to that bundle because the first part, Advocate Sello says bundle, and then it has those names.”

“So if where I am talking only about three people, I open myself up to questions from others who all relate to the same matter.”

“Thank you. Thank you, Advocate Johnson. Is there anything else you would like to add to this statement?”

“That prior to my then-scheduled appearance on 13 July 2026, I took ill and did not appear before the Commission.”

“Accordingly, I place this affidavit before the Commission to preserve my constitutional rights to avoid any unfair prejudice arising from parallel prosecutorial processes.”

“Now that the matter is before the NPA on the basis set out above for a decision on whether I should or not be prosecuted, various consequences emerge.”

“That this is so was confirmed by the NPA on 10 July 2026 as well as by the witness McClean when he testified.”

“The allegations are contained in a docket which is now with the NPA for a decision on whether I should or not be prosecuted and further handling.”

“The notice requires me to deal with allegations against me testified to by Colonel Kobus Roelofse, Captain McClean, and Witness O.”

“I had suggested that we work through the statement first in its entirety before we address the Commissioners about what my engagements with Mr Bodlani, where they landed us and to hear your attitude towards that”

“the question of you as a witness responding to questions the answer to which you believe would incriminate you”

“if the investigating director disagrees with anything, I have the authority to then say this cannot proceed, this must not happen, and/or as I indicated earlier, you have to correct this”

“investigators may be subject to the control and direction of the head of the Investigating Directorate”