By Johnathan Paoli
Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) state advocate Drushantha Ramsamy says suspended chief investigator Dylan Perumal ‘jumped the gun’ in starting an investigation looking into the awarding of a R360-million SAPS tender to attempted murder accused Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala’s company, Medicare24 Tshwane District.
Resuming her testimony on Tuesday afternoon, Ramsamy said she only grasped the seriousness of the situation when she was instructed by former IDAC head Advocate Andrea Johnson on 13 May 2025 to help finalise a Section 28(1) authorisation application for the Medicare24 matter.
“There was no section 27 referral affidavit in existence at the time. Mr. Perumal had instructed Adv Chabalala to prepare the application without a referral,” Ramsamy testified.
ALSO READ: Schreiber hails repatriation of 75,000 undocumented foreign nationals
A Section 27 referral is the mechanism through which a matter is referred to IDAC, while a Section 28 authorisation follows to formally authorise an investigation.
According to Ramsamy, the process appeared to have been reversed.
At a meeting on 16 April 2025, she recorded a discussion between Perumal and Johnson in which Perumal informed Johnson that prosecutor Advocate Tilus Chabalala had already drafted a s28(1) authorisation application for the Medicare24 matter and submitted it to the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions.
Johnson, according to Ramsamy’s notes, was “very agitated” and told Perumal “that he had no idea what he had just done and that it should never have been done that way”.
“She said that she did not even give Advocate Chabalala that matter. This discussion is before a referral, and a 28-1 application has already been submitted,” she said.
The eventual S27 referral was an affidavit by Major General Charity Matlou, then head of SAPS Risk and Integrity Management.
ALSO READ: Illicit miners face proposed R100m fines, 30 years in jail
It was signed and commissioned only on 6 June 2025, weeks after the s28(1) authorisation had been signed in May.
Ramsamy said this chronology made no sense.
“How can it be a 27 referral if the authorisation is done on the 16th, or signed on the 16th of May?. The Act says 27 referrals and then authorisation. So if they’re saying the 6th of June, June is the referral, they were working backwards,” she said.
Matlou’s affidavit said she was supporting the initiation of a criminal investigation into the alleged unlawful awarding of the controversial contract.
She said she reasonably suspected procurement processes had been “flouted or manipulated” to benefit Medicare24 and its sole director, and that corruption and money laundering may have occurred.
But the affidavit also stated that a comprehensive internal audit report was still being compiled and would provide further information about the alleged criminal misconduct.
That became one of Ramsamy’s central concerns.
“Way before this, in May already, I’m asking how can we be investigating something where a report has been requested, an internal report has been requested by the National Commissioner, and the final report is not submitted,” she said.
Ramsamy also challenged Johnson’s previous testimony before Parliament’s ad hoc committee, where Johnson said IDAC had received a s27 referral relating to Matlala on 16 February 2025.
ALSO READ: Ramsamy: Classified IGI report sent to her by Perumal via WhatsApp
Johnson told the committee that the referral came from the SAPS Risk Audit Division and that the head of risk audit had deposed to an affidavit and attached supporting documents.
Ramsamy said she had never seen such a February referral.
“No. And even on the 13th of May, there was no 27 referral. There was just the report that was bouncing between IDAC employees via WhatsApp,” she said.
The documents before the commission showed Matlou’s Section 27 affidavit was only signed on 6 June.
The commission also heard that Matlou, despite being the complainant who submitted the referral, was designated as part of the investigation team.
Ramsamy said she had questioned the arrangement because Matlou was not an IDAC employee and there was no documentation showing that she had been formally reassigned from SAPS Risk and Integrity Management.
She said she had also asked where the duty-reassignment documentation was.
The commission further heard that investigators led by Perumal and another investigator wanted to physically retrieve phones seized from Matlala, an approach Ramsamy opposed because it could compromise the chain of custody.
She said investigators instead had to use the appropriate cyber-search warrant process, digital experts, and forensic imaging.
“Because you are now breaking the chain of custody in that docket. You would then need to serve a warrant on Mr. Matlala. You cannot take the original,” Ramsamy said.
Ramsamy said the sequence of events could not be rationally explained.
“When there’s cover-ups happening, timelines and irrational decisions cannot be explained. It’s basically them trying to cover up, but very poorly so,” she said.
Her testimony was ultimately stood down after she struggled with a persistent cough, with the commission expected to continue her evidence on Friday.
