More “schizophrenic” affidavits?
Legal commentary
A statement by Mr Fadiel Adams, dated 6 January 2025, records two different places on its face. The jurat reads "Thus done and signed to, at Pretoria, on this, the 6th day of January 2025." The commissioning attestation on the same instrument reads "this affidavit was sown to before me and the deponent's signature was placed hereon in my presence at Cape Town." The Commissioner of Oaths is "reflected as Dylan Perumal as the chief investigator," and Colonel Brian Padayachee confirmed in evidence that "Chief Investigator Dylan Perumal commissioned this affidavit." Put to the witness on day 139: "it says it was signed at Pretoria and it says his signature was placed hereon in my presence at Cape Town. Reading that, where was this statement taken and commissioned? Pretoria or Cape Town? It cannot be both." Adv Baloyi SC took the point to its consequence, asking "was the deponent even in front of the Commissioner of Oaths." That question matters because commissioning is an attestation to something the commissioner personally witnessed; where the deponent was is the fact being attested to. A possible explanation was offered, but it is not evidence of where the document was signed. Colonel Padayachee's answer was "I believe this is probably an administrative thing, so it is not Pretoria. From what I heard, this is Cape Town." The qualifications are the witness's own — "I believe", "probably", and "from what I heard" — and the last of them is expressly second-hand. Colonel Padayachee did not commission the instrument; the record identifies Mr Perumal as the Commissioner of Oaths. His answer is therefore a surmise about an administrative process, not testimony as to what he witnessed, and the proposition that followed it, "so reference to Pretoria is incorrect", was put from the bar rather than established. The clerical explanation is a hypothesis that remains untested on this record. The two people able to settle it are the deponent and the commissioner. The Commission's evidence leader has advanced a materially wider contention. On day 148 Adv Sello SC stated that "the statements we have spent the last time working through, commissioned by Mr Perumal, are a post-fact fabrication"; that "the witnesses say they do not know the statements purported to be commissioned by Mr Perumal"; and that "both have provided short voice notes to explain why it is they challenge the validity of these documents commissioned by Mr Perumal." Those are statements by counsel conducting proceedings. They are a case being put, not findings made, and no finding on them appears in the extracted record. The comparison counsel drew is documentary. Other statements in the same set were "commissioned by Mansa Robert Rapetsu in Cape Town," and of one of those counsel observed that it "at least as to where it was commissioned, is not a schizophrenic, it says Cape Town." On day 149 the instrument at issue was described as "the affidavit commissioned by Mr Perumal in Cape Town and Pretoria simultaneously." Two witnesses have since given first-hand evidence on who commissioned what. Advocate Ramsamy testified that "Mr Raphesu commissioned all four supplementary affidavits" and that those "were the only affidavits commissioned in my presence in Cape Town," and she referred to "the schizophrenic affidavit, the Pretoria, Cape Town, Dylan Perumal." On day 152 Mr Raphesu said "I just assumed that it is me who was supposed to have commissioned the affidavits," and gave this characterisation of his colleague: "Mr Perumal is not a person that will want to put his signature or name in any document." That last statement is one official's view of another and is not adjudicated anywhere in the record. What the record establishes is narrow: an instrument bearing two places of signature, a commissioner identified on it, a witness explanation that the discrepancy is clerical, and a contention by counsel — not a finding — that a set of statements commissioned by the same official is unreliable. Nothing extracted here establishes that any document is invalid or fabricated, and no such conclusion is drawn. The question is capable of resolution by ordinary means: the originals, the commissioning register, and evidence from the deponent and the commissioner as to where each was on 6 January 2025.
In plain terms
An affidavit is not just a piece of paper. When someone commissions it, they are swearing that a specific person stood in front of them and signed it. That is the entire point of the exercise. One of the documents in this investigation says it was signed at Pretoria on 6 January 2025. The commissioning stamp on the very same page says the signature was put there in the commissioner's presence at Cape Town. Two cities, opposite ends of the country, one day, one sheet of paper. The Commission's senior counsel said what everyone was thinking: it cannot be both. Then Adv Baloyi SC asked the question that actually bites — was the deponent even in front of the Commissioner of Oaths at all? There is a possible innocent answer, and it should be put. Colonel Padayachee suggested it was "probably an administrative thing" and that the Pretoria reference was wrong. But read his words again: "I believe this is probably", and "From what I heard." He was not the man who commissioned the document. He was not telling the Commission he watched it being signed in Cape Town — he was offering a guess about paperwork. He may well be right. It is also the one part of this story that nobody has actually gone and checked. But the Commission's evidence leader did not leave it there. On day 148 he told the hearing that a set of statements commissioned by Chief Investigator Dylan Perumal are "a post-fact fabrication," that the witnesses named on them "say they do not know" those statements, and that two of them sent voice notes challenging the documents. That is an accusation being put, not a finding — and it has not been ruled on. What has changed is that the people inside IDAC are now describing the same split. Advocate Ramsamy testified that the four supplementary affidavits were commissioned by investigator Mantsha Raphesu, in Cape Town, in front of her — and she called the other one "the schizophrenic affidavit." On 31 July, Raphesu himself took the stand and said he assumed he was the one who should have been commissioning them. He also said this about his colleague: "Mr Perumal is not a person that will want to put his signature or name in any document." None of that is proof that anything was faked, and this article does not say it was. One place-name on one form may well be a typing error. But the question of where a document was signed, and who watched it happen, is not a mystery that needs solving in the abstract. Someone knows where they were on 6 January 2025.
Cited claims
Supporting context