By Johnathan Paoli
State advocate Drushantha Ramsamy broke down in tears before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry on Wednesday as she accused former Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) head Andrea Johnson of sacrificing junior staff to protect herself, while levelling fresh allegations about the handling of the “Project Diversion” investigations.
Resuming her testimony on Wednesday afternoon, an emotional Ramsamy alleged that Johnson submitted documents to the commission that she had not prepared and falsely implicated her in an attempt to deflect responsibility.
“Not only is Advocate Johnson lying to the commission, but she is also throwing a junior under the bus. What kind of leadership is that? Is that really leadership?” Ramsamy asked.
The commission is examining IDAC investigations into the appointment of Crime Intelligence Technical Support Services head Brigadier Dineo Mokwele and the robbery involving Crime Intelligence CFO Major-General Philani Lushaba.
Ramsamy’s testimony centred on what she described as sustained pressure from Johnson to fast-track arrests under the umbrella investigation known as Project Diversion, despite repeated concerns that investigators were abandoning the prosecutor-guided approach required by law.
She said Johnson wanted a steady stream of arrests from May 2025 and alleged that operational decisions were driven by predetermined timelines rather than the strength of the evidence.
According to Ramsamy, investigators planned to pursue arrests first in the Lushaba matter, followed by the Mokwele investigation, before turning to cases involving Crime Intelligence Analysis and Coordination head Major-General Nosipho Madondo, suspended National Police Commissioner General Fannie Masemola and Crime Intelligence head Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo.
Handwritten notes presented to the commission indicated that arrests in the Lushaba investigation were scheduled for 7 May 2025, while arrests in the Mokwele matter were planned for 20 May.
Ramsamy said no warning statements were obtained from suspects because investigators were intent on making arrests first.
“When manipulation is happening, common sense and regulations don’t prevail,” she said.
She further alleged there was a determination to place Masemola and Khumalo “behind bars no matter what”.
Turning to the Lushaba investigation, Ramsamy said she encountered significant evidentiary problems when she was instructed to enrol the matter in May 2025.
In her affidavit, she said she questioned the reliance on Section 204 witnesses whose statements had already been commissioned before she had an opportunity to assess them.
“I informed Adv Johnson during a meeting that I had serious concerns about the evidence because the team was not following the prosecutor-guided method. Adv Johnson told me that I should make a verbal presentation to address the issues but, in effect, the sense I got was that she was not going to side with me over Mr Perumal,” Ramsamy stated.
She testified that prosecutors could only assess the strength of a case based on properly obtained witness statements, but investigators instead attempted to supplement statements that had already been treated as Section 204 evidence.
Ramsamy said she regarded the approach as legally flawed and inconsistent with accepted prosecutorial practice.
Her evidence also challenged Johnson’s earlier testimony regarding the Mokwele investigation.
Johnson had told the commission that a Section 28(1) authorisation relating to the Mokwele matter had been approved on 30 May 2025.
Ramsamy rejected that version, saying she only drafted the umbrella Section 28(1) authorisation on 3 June 2025 after Johnson instructed her to prepare a single authorisation covering all the Crime Intelligence investigations.
She said that timeline made it impossible for the document produced by Johnson to have existed on 30 May.
Ramsamy’s affidavit also raised questions about the seizure of the cellular devices of controversial businessman and attempted murder accused Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala on 30 May 2025.
She testified that she had since learnt Khumalo alleged IDAC chief investigator Dylan Perumal requested the devices on the same day an allegedly approved search warrant was produced.
While she said she could not confirm whether the events were directly connected, Ramsamy suggested investigators may have deliberately avoided relying on an earlier Section 28 authorisation linked to the Medicare24 investigation because they knew that investigation “was unlawful from inception”.
“What I do know is that a Section 28(1) in respect of the Medicare24 matter was authorised on 16 May 2025, but as I deal with later, I suspect that Adv Johnson and Mr Perumal knew that the Medicare24 investigation was unlawful from inception. They may not have wanted to rely on that authorisation,” she said.
Earlier in her testimony, Ramsamy described what she called relentless pressure from Johnson to accelerate Project Diversion.
“It seemed that out of nowhere Advocate Johnson started putting immense pressure on the team to start effecting arrests on Project Diversion. Adv Johnson wanted the matters enrolled as a matter of urgency. She was eager for the arrests to be effected as soon as possible or, as she put it, ‘let us strike while it’s hot’,” she said.
The commission adjourned before Ramsamy completed her testimony.
Her evidence is expected to continue on a date yet to be announced, while the commission is scheduled to hear a new witness on Thursday morning.
INSIDE POLITICS
