The Madlanga commission got off to a dramatic start on Thursday morning after it emerged that an Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) prosecutor is expected to give evidence implicating the directorate’s former head, Advocate Andrea Johnson.
Before Drushantha Ramsamy had even been sworn in, debate erupted over whether parts of her evidence could fairly be heard in public.
Ramsamy’s statement ‘heavily implicates Johnson’
Commission chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga said he had already read an unsigned copy of Ramsamy’s statement and was concerned that it contained serious allegations against Johnson, who concluded six days of testimony before the commission on Wednesday.
Madlanga questioned whether it would be procedurally fair for the allegations to be aired publicly when Johnson had not been confronted with them during her evidence.
“I have concerns because the statement heavily implicates Ms Johnson,” Madlanga indicated, suggesting the commission had a duty to ensure fairness to witnesses.
Evidence leader Advocate Mahlape Sello SC, however, told the commission that Ramsamy’s evidence had surfaced while Johnson was still testifying.
Sello explained that the commission was contacted by a Hawks investigator on July 22, informing it that Ramsamy had already made protected disclosures to the Hawks relating to matters now before the commission.
Testimony based on already disclosed information
According to the evidence leaders, Ramsamy’s intended testimony is based on information she had already disclosed through those protected channels and was not created after Johnson left the witness stand.
The commission also heard that Ramsamy’s first statement for the inquiry was only finalised on Wednesday evening and was signed on Thursday morning, shortly before proceedings began.
As a result, Sello requested a brief adjournment to ensure that the witness, the commissioners and the legal teams all had signed copies before evidence commenced.
The commission granted the request.
Ramsamy is expected to become one of the most significant witnesses to testify against the former Idac leadership after Johnson’s resignation and marathon appearance before the inquiry.
Her evidence is expected to focus on disputed evidence, the inclusion of unverified names in Section 28 authorisations, and allegations that statements were improperly prepared or fabricated during investigations by the anti-corruption unit.
The commission agreed that Johnson would be called back to respond to the allegations once Ramsamy’s testimony is concluded.
ALSO READ: Johnson admits Masemola shouldn’t have joined ‘Cat’ Matlala in graft case
- Commission chair Justice Madlanga expressed concerns over fairness as prosecutor Drushantha Ramsamy's evidence implicates former Idac head Andrea Johnson.
- Debate arose about whether Ramsamy's allegations could be publicly heard, given Johnson was not confronted with them during her testimony.
- Evidence leaders clarified Ramsamy's disclosures were made while Johnson was still testifying and based on protected disclosures to the Hawks.
- Ramsamy’s testimony is expected to challenge the integrity of Idac investigations, focusing on disputed evidence, unverified authorisations, and fabricated statements.
- Johnson will be recalled to respond to Ramsamy's allegations after her testimony concludes.
Before
Commission chairperson Justice
"I have concerns because the statement heavily implicates Ms Johnson,"
Evidence leader Advocate
Sello explained that the commission was contacted by a Hawks investigator on July 22, informing it that Ramsamy had already made protected disclosures to the Hawks relating to matters now before the commission.
As a result, Sello requested a brief adjournment to ensure that the witness, the commissioners and the legal teams all had signed copies before evidence commenced.
Ramsamy is expected to become one of the most significant witnesses to testify against the former Idac leadership after Johnson's resignation and marathon appearance before the inquiry.
Her evidence is expected to focus on disputed evidence, the inclusion of unverified names in Section 28 authorisations, and allegations that statements were improperly prepared or fabricated during investigations by the anti-corruption unit.
ALSO READ: Johnson admits Masemola shouldn't have joined 'Cat' Matlala in graft case
