By Johnathan Paoli
The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has heard voice notes challenging the authenticity of statements made by National Coloured Congress MP Fadiel Adams, raising questions over whether documents used to justify investigations into senior Crime Intelligence officials were created after the fact.
Proceedings resumed on Monday with the commission hearing recordings from IDAC prosecutor Advocate Drushanta Ramsamy and investigator Mantsha Raphesu.
Both disputed that chief investigator Dylan Perumal commissioned several A1 statements from Adams on 6 January 2025, as reflected in documents before the commission.
Evidence leader Advocate Mahlape Sello said both witnesses are expected to testify later this week that only supplementary statements were taken on that date and that the A1 statements attributed to Perumal were not genuine.
“These are the two witnesses and they deny any knowledge of those statements as commissioned by Mr Perumal and their testimony will be that whenever it is Mr Perumal took those statements from Mr Adams and commissioned them, it definitely is not on the 6th of January 2025 because they were together at all times and Mr Perumal himself was present when Mr Raphesu commissioned their statements,” Sello said.
In her recorded message, Ramsamy questioned how two different sets of statements could have been taken from the same complainant on the same day.
“A1 taken by Dylan on the 6th of January 2026 and then a supplementary taken on the same day by Raphesu, 6th of January. Why would two investigating officers sitting in the same boardroom have taken two different statements on the same day? I can confirm that in my presence there were only four statements taken. They were the four supplementary affidavits which I have provided to you,” she said.
Ramsamy further disputed the timeline reflected in the documents.
“The A1 was not taken in my presence and it could not have been taken on the 6th of January. Dylan did not take or commission any statements in my presence. We had one vehicle, we all travelled together and all meals were done together. So when exactly would Perumal have taken the statements on the 6th if we were together?” she said.
Raphesu echoed those concerns, saying the disputed affidavit could not have been obtained on the recorded date.
“This A1 could not have been possible because on that day we only obtained the supplementaries. So there was no way Dylan could have obtained that affidavit on that day. Maybe my thinking is that maybe it was signed on a different date, which I don’t know,” he said.
He also questioned the authenticity of Adams’ signature on the document.
“Also remember I was questioning that signature of Fadiel. It looks like someone was trying to jigga it but I’m not an expert. So I think that affidavit was obtained afterwards. It was not on the 6th,” Raphesu said.
IDAC head Andrea Johnson did not dispute the witnesses’ accounts and agreed the chronology appeared procedurally impossible.
“Procedurally it does not make sense. What might have made sense is the four statements to be taken. If perhaps Mr Perumal took two and Raphesu took two. But you cannot have one team together, same day, same place,” she said.
Baloyi added that it appeared illogical for investigators travelling together to obtain both an A1 statement and a supplementary statement from the same complainant on the same day.
Johnson agreed, saying the purpose of the supplementary statements was to strengthen the Section 27 dockets that were allegedly incomplete.
The commission then turned to whether IDAC is in possession of documents Adams claimed had been anonymously delivered to his parliamentary office.
Sello referred Johnson to Adams’ Section 27 affidavit, in which Adams stated that documents relating to Major-General Nosipho Madondo’s security clearance had been slipped under the door of his parliamentary office and attached to his affidavit as annexure “FA1”.
Reading from the affidavit, Sello argued that the wording suggested IDAC should have had those documents.
However, she pointed out that annexure FA1 was absent from the material provided to the commission.
“So IDAC has them. Otherwise you are forced to then say Mr Adams is misleading in that affidavit … and you’ve got no basis, as far as I’m aware, to say so,” Sello said.
Johnson confirmed she had never seen the annexure.
When asked whether Perumal could urgently assist the commission in locating the documents, IDAC’s legal representative, Advocate Apla Bodlani, told the commission that Perumal had been hospitalised over the weekend and remained unavailable.
“He was hospitalised during the course of the past weekend. Attempts would be made to get that docket from his office, but we haven’t had access to him at all,” Bodlani said.
The developments follow Johnson’s earlier evidence that she could not confirm whether IDAC had ever obtained the evidence Adams claimed supported allegations that Crime Intelligence head Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo had covered up the theft of Crime Intelligence CFO Major-General Philani Lushaba’s official laptop and that Secret Service funds had been used to purchase replacement equipment.
The commission has subpoenaed IDAC to produce all investigation records relating to the Crime Intelligence investigations, including all A1 statements provided by Adams as of January 2025, together with the documents that authorised investigations into alleged security-vetting manipulation and appointments.
The commission continues.
INSIDE POLITICS
