COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO STATE CAPTURE
HELD AT
PARKTOWN, JOHANNESBURG

10

11 APRIL 2019

DAY 81

20

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 11 APRIL 2019
CHAIRPERSON: Good morning Mr Pretorius, good morning everybody.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Morning Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Chair the…
CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Proposed order of business today is firstly to
deal with the matter relating to the evidence of the witness to be called Mr McBride who
is present. The second will be a relatively brief opening statement introducing the
10

evidence to be given regarding Law Enforcement Agencies as you were informed last
week two witnesses will be called before the Eastern break and then after certain other
evidence the Law Enforcement Agency evidence will be resumed and I will outline the
nature of that evidence and give some background to that evidence after we have dealt
with the matter related to the evidence of Mr McBride. Chair so to deal with the f irst
issue first may I hand up to you a bound copy of the documentation forwarded to you
last night which is relative to this matter?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Chair the witness to be called for the

remainder of this week at least is Mr McBride. He will testify to a range of matters and
20

a range of disciplinary hearings as well as inquiries. One of those inquiries was chaired
by Mxolisi Zuma who is your younger brother.
CHAIRPERSON: Zondo.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Oh Zondo sorry Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Not Zuma.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: I actually wrote that. My apologies Chair. In

Page 2 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
any event Zondo Juniior is your younger brother; he chaired an inquiry involving a
person other than the witness but who is implicated or not implicated involved in the
chain of evidence that Mr McBride will give. The issue then arises Chair as to whether
you as Chair should in those circumstances hear the evidence of Mr McBride or
whether he should hear that part of the evidence implicating Mr Zondo Juniior. Given
those circumstances Chair of which you were made aware you directed that all persons
involved be given notices that this issue would arise. Notices were then given to Mr
Zondo Juniior; were given to Mr McBride and to Mr Sesoko who was the subject of the
investigation and disciplinary matter chaired by Mxolisi Zondo. All of those three
10

responded to state that they had no objection to you Chair hearing the relevant
evidence. So there is no issue raised let along objection raised by any person directly
involved in this evidence any potential outcome of the evidence that you will hear. In
your bundle Chair just behind the divider you will see the response to the notice given
by Mxolisi Zondo.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: At page 2 of that notice or the response to the
notice rather in paragraph 3. Mxolisi Zondo says:
“I believe that the commission would in the end be in a position
to evaluate the evidence of Mr McBride or any other witness in

20

the totality of all the other relevant evidence at its disposal and
draw its conclusions. Whatever McBride or any other witness
might say about me in connection with my role as Chairperson in
Sesoko’s disciplinary hearing must be considered in the light of
the official record of the disciplinary inquiry to which I have
absolutely nothing to add as the record ought to speak for itself.”

Page 3 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
In short Mxolisi Zondo’s response to the notice given to him and to the issues outlined
to him is there is a full record that record can be judged objectively; that record speaks
for itself. He is not going to come as he says in his next paragraph to cross -examine
Mr McBride or any other witness at the commission. He is not going to apply to seek to
give testimony and he says therefore that the issue of conflict of interest does not even
arise. There is a record; you Chair can read the record and you can draw your own
conclusions on the basis of the record. You will not be weighing up the credibility of the
testimony of one or other witness. Mr McBride will give his views of what happened,
the record stands for its objective assessment by yourself. So what Mr Zondo Junior
10

concludes; he says:
“Neither will I apply or seek to give testimony myself”
Having said he will not seek to cross-examine and he concludes:
“In my respectful view the potential conflict of this – of interest in
this regard with therefore be completely vitiated and any
necessity for submissions on the correct process to apply where
there is a conflict of interest would thus become academic and of
no consequence at all.”
And then he reserves his rights in regard to evidence to be led by Mr McBride but in
unrelated potential proceedings.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So whilst that is not decisive of the issue
clearly Chair it is a factor that in determining the way forward you will take into account.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm, hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: After that Chair are two communications from
Mr McBride and Mr Sesoko respectively. Mr McBride says:

Page 4 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
“I have full trust and confidence in Judge Zondo to Chair the
proceedings of the commission.”
And he has no objection whatsoever to you Chair hearing all the submissions and a
similar communication comes from Mr Sesoko the National Head of Investigations in
IPID the Independent Police Investigative Directorate.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So from those directly involved there is no
issue raised at all. On the contrary the statement is made that the issue of conflict
does not really arise at least in the view of Mr Mxolisi Zondo.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: However Chair because this is matter not only
of personal interest to those involved it is a matter of public interest.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: The legal team through one of its members
made a thorough investigation into the applicable law and the applicable facts and that
submission is before you which you have no doubt had an opportunity to read. May I
just refer you Chair to the first part of the submissions which are the submissions of the
legal team as mandated by the team to the drafter of this document but not unanimous
and I will give you an alternative view in due course. The first few pages deal with the

20

law in relation to bias or perception of bias when that should arise and when it should
be dealt with. The authorities relied on here deal with matters where a judge sits as a
judge. A judge that will determine rights finally and I will deal with that issue again in
due course.

But in paragraph 9 on page 6 the proposition is made in this

memorandum.
“Later the court sets out the following principled approach which

Page 5 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
proposition must find application even where a judge presides at
a commission or tribunal.”
And this is the South African Rugby Football Union case of which you are doubt aware
Chair. And the quote at paragraph 9 is:
“The question is whether a reasonable objective and informed
person would on the correct fact reasonably apprehend that the
judge has not or will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the
adjudication of the case. That is a mind open to persuasion by
the evidence and submissions of counsel.”
10

And I stress that part is apart from the objective nature of the assessment to be made
the question is whether the Chair in this case will retain a mind open to persuasion by
the evidence and the submissions of counsel. The evidence in this case being a fixed
record; opinions on the evidence you are free to deal with on your own or having regard
to the submissions of counsel to you. So the question is raised whether the close
relationship between the Chair and Mxolisi Zondo requires a recusal.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: That could happen in one of two manners
Chair. Either the recusal if considered could be for the whole of the Law Enforcement
Agency evidence, it could be for the evidence of Mr McBride or just that portion of the

20

evidence involving Mr Mxolisi Zondo which is one paragraph. In fact a few lines in one
paragraph Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: The point is stressed in paragraph 14 on page
8 that:
“The closer the relationship the closer the degree of intimacy the

Page 6 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
greater the need to consider the issues.”
But may I draw your attention to page 9. There is a quote from a criminal court well a
judgment in a criminal matter rather State versus Dubey where the remark is made:
“If it is not feasible for a recusal to replace yourself with someone
else to hear part or all of the relevant evidence then an
alternative route is proposed.

If it is not feasible then the

relationship must be brought to the attention of the parties and
their consent canvassed before the commencement of the
hearing. If such consent is given it must be entered into the
record.”

10

Now those parties directly implicated in relation to the issues which are before you
Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Have stated their position clearly and they
range from an expression of faith in your hearing the matter and making whatever
findings you need to make to the contention raised by Mr Mxolisi Zondo that because
there is a written record the matter does not arise. So the alternatives – having said
that Chair the matter is one of public interest and a way must therefore be found of
leaving the door open for anyone who can claim an interest in this issue nevertheless
20

and notwithstanding present circumstances still to come forward and we will deal with
that issue in a moment as well Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So there are really three options Chair. Does
the Chair recuse himself from presiding over the hearing when Mr McBride and Mr
Sesoko testify?

Secondly does the Chair recuse himself from that portion of the

Page 7 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
evidence that deals with the disciplinary hearing over which Mr Mxolisi Zondo presided?
The third option should you recuse yourself at all given the attitude of the effected
parties none of whom seek his recusal? The proposal that having considered all the
submissions made that are before you is somewhat of a compromise between the
second and the third and I will come to that in a moment. Then Chair there is a
technical examination of the legal framework. The conclusions reached certainly after
examination of all involved are that given the legal framework governing the
commission you Chair do not have power to substitute yourself. Your appointment and
any substitution is beyond your jurisdiction Chair. The suggestion is then made that
10

possibly the regulations should be changed by the President to allow the President to
substitute for that one paragraph of evidence. That in my view is not an appropriate
solution it is just too complex and too drastic a remedy to deal with the issue of one
paragraph of evidence of Mr McBride. And then the third is to hear given the – given
the response of those directly involved; their submissions; the other factors that I will
mention in a moment is to hear it subject to one caveat and I will present that to you
now Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Chair considering the nature of the evidence.
The nature of the evidence is an opinion about conduct of Mr Mxolisi Zondo in a

20

disciplinary inquiry where he chaired that inquiry. That record is available. That hard
evidence is available. The nature of the evidence to be given by Mr McBride is an
opinion. Those facts can be tested and conclusions can be drawn. The second is that
the proportion of that evidence to the evidence of Mr McBride as a whole it is
minuscule.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.

Page 8 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: It is not something that is essential to the – in
our submission Mr McBride may differ but in our submission it is not something that is
essential to the points that Mr McBride wishes to make before you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: There is no objection to you hearing that
portion of the evidence or stated apprehension of bias and importantly Chair you sit as
an investigator. You do not sit as a judge. You make recommendations in accordance
with your mandate. It is not a final determination of rights. It may affect reputation
importantly but that is the extent to which it goes.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And then finally for what it is worth you will
hear the submissions of the legal team and you will decide whether to be guided by
those submissions or not. So the proposal that we make before Chair having regard to
the extensive research and presentation done on behalf of the legal team which I have
gone through briefly with you and which you have no doubt have had an opportunity to
peruse last night is you hear the evidence. That you make no findings on that particular
potion of the evidence at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: That at a stage either prior to or after the

20

evidence has been given you invite any concerned person of the public because it is
the public now that may have an interest to make submissions to should they be so
minded and then you make a final decision on what should be done about that piece of
evidence that you will have heard thereafter but if it is to be adjudicated by someone
else that will not have cause any prejudice to any person.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.

Page 9 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So subject to an invitation to the public to
make submissions to you Chair at any stage regarding the propriety or otherwise of you
hearing the evidence we submit that you hear the evidence but make no findings on it
until that process has been concluded.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm. The other aspect which may be needs consideration may be
whether before I make any decision if I have to make a decision whether the President
who has the power generally speaking to amend the terms of reference whether if he is
apprised of this issue and the facts whether it might b e within his power to decide
whether he amends the terms of reference in such a way that I do not deal with that
10

issue. I just mention that because subject to what I will say just now ordinarily the
President would have the power to amend the terms of reference of a commission at
any time. And the current terms of reference specially have a provision that says; I
hope my recollection is correct; it says the terms of reference may be varied or
amended. Now I think there is something to that effect in the terms of reference. I
hope I am not confusing it with the regulations.

Of course in certain respects this

commission is not a normal commission in the way of how it came about. Ordinarily a
commission comes about because the President makes a decision on his or her own
based on whatever information has been placed before him or her to make a decision
to establish a commission. But in this case the then President as far as I recall was not
20

just against the commission being established but the courts had to be approached to
compel him to appoint a commission and the idea of a commission did not come from
the President it came from the former Public Protector and the former Public Protector
in her remedial action effectively prescribed how the commission s hould be established
in the sense that she said the Chairperson must be appointed by the Chief Justice.
One of the issues I had to consider after I was appointed was that ordinarily I would

Page 10 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
have preferred to sit with other people and not alone and be in a panel for a matter
such as this. But there was a complication because the question would arise how
those people would be appointed because if they were simply appointed by the
President you could have a situation where the President appointed two other p eople
whose decisions could be a majority if we did not agree and I could be the minority and
then the public could have certain concerns because the Public Protector did not say
anything about other members being appointed. So there were some complicatio ns so
the question may arise also whether if any appointment is to be made how it is to be
made of anybody. Is it a matter that should the current Public Protector have a say as
10

the successor to the previous Public Protector? Should the Chief Justice hav e a say?
Should he not have a say? So it is not all very easy. So there are those issues but
while not decisive the fact that the two persons who are directly affected oh well
actually three have all said they have absolutely no problem that I hear all the evidence.
That is an important factor. But as you say it might not be decisive. It may well be that
given the fact that one this commission has very limited time to complete its work and
the evidence of Mr McBride and the evidence relating to Law Enforcement has been
adjourned two times it may be that one should look at a practical way of dealing with
this and it appears to me that the suggestion you make may well be a useful one and
the practical one. Namely that I do not make any decision – final decision now but I do

20

hear the evidence and maybe as you say maybe invite you know the public and maybe
I could consider maybe in writing legal professional bodies to brief counsel to come to
address this issue so that I hear other submissions but it may w ell be that a
consideration also should be given whether there is any role that should be played by
the President in regard to the issue. So – so I am inclined to once say I am not making
any final decision that I might have to make earlier if it is really necessary. But two, I –

Page 11 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
we continue I hear the evidence and in due course an announcement maybe would be
made as to exactly what is to be done in relation to inviting the public to make
submissions and or the GCB or the Law Society or all – and other legal professional
bodies to maybe make some submissions and then we take it from there. I – what do
you say to that, is that …?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Chair just a few remarks.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Firstly the issue at stake regarding the

disciplinary inquiry conducted by Mxolisi Zondo is at best and Mr McBride may disagree
10

but in our assessment is that best a collateral issue. It may be Chair that in the course
– due course you decide you do not need to make any finding because it is not central
to the terms of reference of the commission. The purpose from the legal team’s point of
view of Mr McBride giving evidence is not an assessment of the correctness or
otherwise of the findings.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: That is the first issue. The second issue Chair
which you highlight now is the legal framework under which we are operating. It is
complex and it is unique. The Commissions Act which governs the operations of this
commission as well as the regulations are one set of legal issues. The other set is the

20

report of the Public Protector and the judgment of the full bench of the High Court in
Gauteng – North Gauteng which determined the manner in which this commission was
to be managed and the manner of your appointment in particular was dealt with in that
judgment Chair. Now to – there are two issues that arise there. Firstly a general
proposition of law bearing in mind all the legal framework under which this Commission
operates is that one cannot divide up. You have been appointed Chair to Chair the

Page 12 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
Commission, it cannot be divided up between various judges let alone one appointed
by yourself to substitute for you in assessing the evidence in regard to that collateral
issue.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: But the – despite the very thorough research
contained in the memorandum it maybe that.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

It would not be within the powers of the

President to amend the terms.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Of reference or regulations to contradict the
court judgment.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Because that is decisive in the manner in

which you are appointed. So it is a very complex matter Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And obviously it is a matter around which no
error can be made.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So there idea that it be carefully considered.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: That any interested party particularly.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: One of those parties that had been involved in
similar litigation.

Page 13 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: In the past who may have been involved in the
High Court matter be given an opportunity.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: To comment should they so wish.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: It may be they do not wish Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So they so wish.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: But in the meanwhile we proceed.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm. Okay, thank you. I know that there is legal representation for
one of the persons – one of the [indistinct] mentioned. I assume that they hav e not
indicated any desire to make any contribution.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: To this debate, no Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: But in fairness.
CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Ngcukaitobi.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: They – they are not aware of this issue.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, they are not aware of it?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: No Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Maybe let us hear Mr Ngcukaitobi, do you – you were still
anyway to place yourself on record. You can take this opportunity.
ADV TEMBEKA NGCUKAITOBI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And say whether you have any contribution or you have anything to

Page 14 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
say or whether it is something you have not considered.
ADV TEMBEKA NGCUKAITOBI:

Thank

you

Mr Chair.

My

name

is

Tembeka Ngcukaitobi. I am with Ms Hanna Taouk. We act for Werksmans Attorneys.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV TEMBEKA NGCUKAITOBI: It is the first time we have got to know about the
topic.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV TEMBEKA NGCUKAITOBI: And we would obviously like to make a contributio n
to assist the Commission.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV TEMBEKA NGCUKAITOBI: But not at this stage Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Not at this stage, okay.
ADV TEMBEKA NGCUKAITOBI: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Not that is fine. Thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: There are other Counsel present Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: I have not been informed of that, but I am now
informed that there are two other Counsel present. I do not know if they are directly
representative of the interests of the parties directly involved in this issue.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Oh ja, because on the – it might be that it is a limited number.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe let us – we – because I will continue and hear the
evidence for now until I have made a decision if I need to until some other time when
the matter has received more consideration and maybe heard from other parties – other
parties as well. I do not think that there can be – I think one could have a situation

Page 15 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
where one hears as long as you have not made any decision. I am sure that you can
always if you become convinced that you should not make a continued change or make
a decision that you are not going to proceed to the stage of making any finding. So I
think I would go along with the suggestion that we will – I will hear the evidence and the
matter will continue to receive attention and at some stage I will announce what is to
happen.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Yes.

Chair and on that basis then the

submissions made and the research done which informs the memorandum before you
from the legal team will remain of relevance.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Chair the next matter for today is a brief

opening statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Which will introduce issues relevant to the
cluster of evidence and the group of witnesses who will testify in regard to Law
Enforcement Agencies.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And we would like to take the opportunity to
introduce that evidence to you.
20

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Chair for the benefit of the public we may just
say at the outset that the Law Enforcement regime in South Africa is both vast and
complex and in order for the evidence to be understood in its proper context it is
necessary to describe for the purposes of the Commission - yourself Chair and for the
public – how Law Enforcement is constructed and how it is intended to operate in this

Page 16 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
country post 1994. Chair we [intervenes].
CHAIRPERSON: What happened Mr Pretorius?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: We are dealing with.
CHAIRPERSON: [Intervenes].
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Technically issues Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Which caused the delay in starting at 09:30 in
the first place.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
10

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: But hopefully they have been dealt with. We
can go to page 1. Chair the – do you have a copy of the?
CHAIRPERSON: This is now EXHIBIT 1?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Presentation before you? No, it is a – it is not
in that file Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: It is that document there.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I have got it.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

On page 2 of the document by way of

introduction we outline the institutions which operate under the general rubric category
20

description of Law Enforcement and the institutions that have been established to
combat corruption in South Africa directly are the following. Firstly there is the South
African Police Services. There is the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation. That
is the Hawks. There is a unit called the Special Investigations Unit which I will deal with
in due course. Three is the National Prosecuting Authority, perhaps the most wellknown of the Law Enforcement and Corruption Investigation Units and prosecution

Page 17 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
units. There is the State Security Agency and there is the Asset Forfeiture Unit. Those
institutions are supported by a number of other institutions and what is before you Chair
is illustrative not necessarily complete in all its facets, but there is the Auditor -General
an body which will investigate accounts, finances, various Government – Government
related institutions. There is the Department of Public Administration which plays its
role. There is the Public Service Commission. There is the Public Protector’s Office,
State Attorney and there are others as well. The next slide may seem complicated and
it will be broken up in due course, but the point for the moment Chair is there is an
elaborate and comprehensive network of interrelated institutions whose intention was in
10

their establishment and in the execution of their duties to detect, combat and
prosecution – prosecute corruption. Those all operate under the auspices ultimately of
the Presidency. Parliament plays its oversight role. The Department of Justice is a
separate department under which for example the National Prosecuting Authority and
the Special Investigations Unit operate. The police to the left is again a comprehensive
and complex set of structures and institutions which involve a number of sub categories
of organisation that I will deal with in a moment.

Governance, finance and the

intelligence services are also intended to play their role in detecting, preventing and
combatting prosecuting corruption. So Chair for the moment it is not necessary to
understand this complex diagram. It is there for one simple purpose. That the statutory
20

and constitutional framework within which vast – vastly resourced and vastly people
bodies operate to deal with corruption is a matter of fact and I will deal with the various
sections of that in a moment, because ultimately Chair the question will be asked this
vast organisational structure funded and peopled as it is why is it necessary for this
Commission to be here in the first place if that system in all its resources and
complexity was operating properly, we would not be here and that is the question that

Page 18 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
we will address. Whether that is a valid statement to make in due course. We could
deal with the next slide Chair which breaks down that overall picture. If one deals with
the police under the authority of the Minister of Police and the Deputy Minister of Police
you have the South African Police Services. Interposed between the South African
Police Service and the Ministry is the Commissioner of the South African Police
Services.

He is assisted by Deputy National Commissioners and Provincial

Commissioners. Crime intelligence is something different from the other intelligence
agencies of which we will talk in due course. Crime intelligence falls within the police.
We will give evidence about the operations of crime intelligence in due course. It is
10

separate from the South African Police Service but still within the framework of
organisations that reside under the Commissioner of Police.

There are various

institutions or organisations which reside under the South African Police Service
heading. Those involve crime investigation services. That is the general detective
services.

Commercial crime, organised crime, specific investigations and family

violence and child protection. Those units all reside under the South African Police
Service.

Also under the police category is the Directorate for Priority Crime

Investigation. The DPCI or commonly known to the public as the Hawks. They conduct
serious commercial crime investigations. They deal with serious organised crime.
They deal with priority crimes, specialised investigations. The SIU – I am corrected is
20

the Special Investigating Unit and not the Special Investigations Unit but I will come to
them in a moment Chair. Now at a stage there existed an Anti-Corruption Task Team. I
will deal with that in a moment but that for the moment was organisationally in the
position that it is there under the DPCI or the Hawks. That became dysfunctional at a
stage. Precisely why will be interrogated and evidence will be led before you. Prior to
2012 then on the right hand side of the screen was an institution called the – I think it

Page 19 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
was called the Independent Complaints Directorate. Anyway it is no longer and was
replaced by the organisation which you will hear about in due course – IPID, the
Independent Police Investigation Directorate. That organisation Chair resides under an
Executive Director which reports in limited facets only to the Minister of Police. I will
come to oversight in a moment but is essentially independent. Its functions like the
DPCI or the Hawks have been a subject of two Constitutional Court judgments which
will be referred to evidence – in evidence in due course. Essentially the purpose of the
legislation which governs the Hawks and IPID stresses their independence and the
relevance of that and how this has come to affect the evidence that you will hear will be
10

dealt with in due course. Again if one regards this organisational structure as merely a
part – just go back one – as merely a part of the overall Law Enforcement governing
structure of our post – well our democratic Constitution, organisation, structures all
residing under the Constitution and the legislation which I will also deal with in a
moment one will see that the structures we have just dealt with under the heading
police are but a part of the overall Justice and police structures meant to deal with
amongst other things of course corruption. If we may then go to the justice slide. Again
a vast organisational structure residing under the Minister of Justice and Constitutional
Development and at another level it is Director-General. Perhaps I better go back
Chair to deal with oversight specifically in relation to the police. IPID in particular is

20

subject to the oversight of Parliament in various committees. Crime intelligence also
residing under the police is subject to the oversight of the Inspector General of
Intelligence which in turn is subject to the oversight of Parliament. So not only is there
a hierarchy of authority governing crime intelligence, the South African Police Service,
the Hawks and IPID which reports then to the Minister of Police, but there is also
provision for Parliamentary oversight and other oversight. That is the system that will

Page 20 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
be interrogated in evidence. We may return to Justice then. There are two princip al
bodies which reside in the Department of Justice. The first is the Special Investigations
Unit. Chair I will deal with a number of specific bodies in due course. For the moment
just the overall picture. The Special Investigating Unit – Unit resides under the Minister
of Justice and Constitutional Development and his or her Director -General. The NPA –
the National Prosecuting Authority – similarly resides within the Justice framework.
Originally as you will know Chair there existed a Directorate of Special Operations, the
Scorpions which was disbanded in 2009. We will deal with that issue in due course in
evidence as well. It was reported into or was part of the National Prosecuting Authority.
10

Notionally at least, but not organisationally the Hawks replaced but we have dealt with
them in the previous slide. The NPA is headed by the National Director or Public
Prosecutions. There is a dotted and a direct reporting line to the Minister of Justice and
Constitutional Development. Now the NPA and I may deal with this in more detail in
due course is peopled by some 4 500 investigators and staff. Under the Directorate of
National Public Prosecutions one has a Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit, a Sexual
Offences and Community Affairs Unit, a National Prosecuting Service and a Priority
Crimes Litigation Unit. I am going to deal in some detail and not for a long time but in
some detail with the PCLU because it will be the subject of direct evidence in due
course. The National Director of Public Prosecutions is organised principally on a

20

regional basis and the authority – I am told – for making decisions in relation to
prosecutions in particular – particular prosecutions devolves in the Provincial Directors
of Public Prosecutions.

The Asset Forfeiture Unit resides within the National

Prosecuting Authority. Again a vast way resourced. Perhaps not as well-resourced as
it wishes to be - it is in fact understaffed – financed organisation specifically intended to
deal with crime and to deal amongst other things with corruption. I will come back to

Page 21 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
some aspects of that slide in due course.

Then the next slide deals with the

intelligence part of the overall framework. The intelligence structures reside under the
Minister of State Security. There is a State Security Agency which is an organisation or
entity that comprises the two previous entities which were dissolved in 2009 and
merged into the State Security Agency. That is the National Intelligence Agency on the
one hand and the South African Secret Service on the other. The State Security
Agency is accountable to the Inspector General of Intelligence and subject to
Parliamentary oversight. There is a domestic branch to the State Security Agency and
there is a foreign branch. Its operations too will come under scrutiny in the evidence to
10

be put before you. Then collateral to that structure of course one cannot ignore the
finance structures in Government and in the Executive residing under the Minister of
Finance where we have the accounted General. We have the South African Revenue
Services and we have importantly about which evidence will be given the Financial
Intelligence Centre.

Of course at some level the governance in employment

administrative and the discipline at least insofar as disciplinary p rescripts and
framework is concerned reside elsewhere in the organisational structure and then
finally at the top in oversight role and an accounting role we have the Presidency and
Parliament. Reporting into Parliament and to the National Assembly we hav e the
Auditor-General and the Public Protector and we have also Parliamentary Oversight
20

Committees to whom for example the Inspector General of Intelligence would report.
Chair if I may before I go on just deal in a little more detail with the Special
Investigations Unit. Now the role and function of the Special Investigation Unit is not
always clearly understood. It is not a prosecuting arm of Law Enforcement Agencies. It
is an investigative unit. Its primary mandate is to recover and prevent financia l losses
to the state caused by acts of corruption, fraud and maladministration. Its role in the

Page 22 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
main we are told is to investigate and recover losses to the state as a result of fraud
and corruption. Where criminal activities are uncovered in these inve stigations those
are then referred on to the National Prosecuting Authority or if necessary elsewhere.
Sometimes to the Hawks. The SIU is staffed as an investigation unit by lawyers,
forensic investigators and experts maybe called upon from time to time assist it.
Engineers, quantity surveyors and the like but its investigations feed into civil recovery
and feed into prosecutions on the basis of referrals out. So the SIU is really an
investigative unit investigating fraud and corruption. It is peopled we are told and the –
this may be subject to some correction by approximately 500 legal and forensically
10

skilled personnel. If I may mention the PCLU, if we can go back to the slide please
where the PLCU appears and if I may just ask – bear with me Chair. It is necessary to.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I have found it, but the page on which it is, is not marked. So I
cannot tell you what page it is.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes, I am sorry. The page numbers are not
here in this version, but it is the Justice slide Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm. Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

The Priority Crimes Litigation Unit is an

interesting unit because its role and function relevant to the matters being investigated
by this Commission are of some importance.
20

CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

It resides within the National Prosecuting

Authority. It is one of the principal structures there. This unit came into existence by
way of a proclamation under the then President Mbeki on 24 March 2003. If I may just
quote from that proclamation.
“Its intention was in particular to manage and direct the

Page 23 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
investigation and prosecution of crimes contemplated in the
implementation of the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court at 2002. It was to deal with serious national and
international crimes which include acts of terrorism and
sabotage committed under the Internal Security Act, high
treason, sedition, foreign military crimes committed by
mercenaries or such other priority crimes to be determined by
the National Director.”
So clearly Chair this unit was set up to deal with a specific category of crime.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

As described in the proclamation of an

international flavour informed by international statute. However we k now and you will
hear evidence in this regard that the Priority Crimes Litigation Unit was peopled under
the authority of the National Director of Public Prosecutions at the time with a number
of prosecutors and investigators and it was this unit that investigated and sought to
prosecute the Minister of Finance at the time, Mr Pravin Gordhan.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

For the payment – the pension pay out

payment.
20

CHAIRPERSON: Huh-uh.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

The

previous

Deputy

Commissioner,

Mr Ivan Pillay. Mr van Loggerenberg, all of SARS, Mr Robert McBride whom you will
hear about of IPID in, Innocent Khuba of IPID, Matthews Sesoko of IPID, a previous
state prosecutor

Glynnis Breytenbach, Paul O’Sullivan

Paul O’Sullivan.

Page 24 of 148

and

the secretary of

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

They were all prosecuted or sought to be

prosecuted.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Or investigated under the rubric of the

International Security Crimes described in the proclamation.

We will investigate

whether this was a deliberate manipulation and distortion of the mandate of the PCLU
and a misuse of that body.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
10

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: To conduct investigations for which it was not
intended and we will ask questions around that and seek to address the issues arising
out of that.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: That is one example of the type of evidence
that we will be leading in due course.
Before going on to the slide we’re dealing with personnel beginning with the
arrangements under President Kgalema Motlanthe I would like us to deal with two other
issues of some importance ultimately. Our country is signatory to two international
United Nations prescripts, the one is the United Nations Convention against Corruption,

20

by which we are bound because we’re a signatory constitutionally to that.

That

Convention against Corruption was adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations on 31 October 2003, and South Africa became a signatory to that Convention
and therefore bound by it in 2003 where it was formerly ratified then on 22 November
2004. In addition there are others but these are the two which we wish to mention now,
there’s the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime to which

Page 25 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
South Africa is also a signatory and which has been ratified on 14 December 2000 and
20 February 2004 respectively that is a Convention that was entered into in November
2000 by the United Nations. The legislation that we will deal with Chair to one degree
or another in relation to the police is the South African Police Service Act, the NPA,
National Prosecuting Authority is governed by the National Prosecuting Authority Act,
there’s a separate Act governing IPID the Independent Police Investigative Directorate
Act, there’s the Witness Protection Act, there’s the Intelligence Services Act, there’s the
Financial Intelligence Centre Act and the Asset Forfeiture Unit is dealt with by a
separate legislation. If I may just give some preliminary numbers to illustrate – if we can
10

go back the first slide please, second slide, this vast network is as I’ve stated, well
resourced and well populated. Visible policing is managed by approximately 103 000
members of the South African Police Service there are 40 000 detectives in the South
African Police Service, the Hawks DPCI comprise approximately 2 500 personnel,
Crime Intelligence approximately 9 500 personnel and Protection Services 7 000, the
National Prosecuting Authority approximately 4 500 personnel and the Independent
Police Investigative Directorate 400 personnel. So it is not small not incomprehensive
and not under-resourced although not ideally resourced on our instructions, and Chair
we return to the basic question and we’ll come to that in a little more detail later why is
this Commission necessary to be sitting and why has it been able to do what it has

20

been able to do in eight months of its evidence thus far when we’ve had this framework,
resourced and peopled as it is for over 10 years, in fact up to 20 years in different
forms. That is the essential question that we will be addressing in a little more detail.
If I may go then to, just identifying individual persons in authority with in this
structure at various periods of time. These slides are not put up at this stage, at least,
to draw any conclusions, let alone any negative conclusions but merely to place people

Page 26 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
in particular positions and particular lines of authority when you hear them refer to
evidence in due course. The Minister of Safety and Security under the presidency of
President Kgalema Motlanthe between 2008 and 2009 was Minister Nathi Mthethwa, he
occupied that position at that time. At the same time the Minister of Justice and
Constitutional Development was Minister Radebe and the Minister of Intelligence about
whom some evidence will be led was, at the time, Minister Siyabonga Cwele. The next
slide deals with the position under President Zuma and again like with other evidence
questions will be raised around appointments and dismissals and their significance, if
any to what occurred under the watch of the various Ministers but between May 2009
10

and February 2018 one had three Ministers of police, Minister Mthethwa, Minister
Nhleko and Minister Mbalula.
The regime under the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
and the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, there was a change in 2014
when two departments were merged, Minister Jeff Radebe and Minister Michael
Masutha and then the Ministers of State Security in turn, Minister Cwele, Minister
Mahlobo and Minister Bongo. National Commissioners and Directors General then
during the same period May 2009 to February 2018 the National Commissioners of
Police who will be, at least, referred to in evidence were in those respective periods on
the screen Mr Cele, Ms Phiyega, Khomotso Phahlane, Lesetja Mothiba and Khehla

20

Sithole. The National head of the DPCI, and you will ...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: I guess that to the extentness of it, it would be more accurate to say
some of them were just Acting National Commissioners but others were fully appointed.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Yes Chair indeed Moghlane and Mothebe

were acting during the periods reflected, thank you. Then the National Head of the
DPCI or the Hawks and this is – this list of personnel is directly related to evidence that

Page 27 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
will be given over the next few days for the period 2009 to 2014 the position was
occupied by Anwa Dramat, he was replaced in an acting capacity by Bern ing Ntlemeza
and later in an acting capacity by Yolisa Matakata and finally by Geoffrey Lebeya who is
there in a permanent position at present. The Director Generals of – or Directors
General of Justice and Constitutional Development are listed in the nex t part of that
slide, the Directors General of the State Security Agency, some of whom will be giving
evidence or at least one of whom has given evidence, that list of personnel includes Mr
Makathuka, Mr Dlomo in an acting capacity, Sontho Kudjoe, Arthur Fraser and Yolisa
Jafta who is presently occupying the position in an acting capacity.
10

Then the National Directors of Public Prosecutions are listed there, they will
also be the subject of direct evidence Chair between 2007 and 2009 Mokotedi Mche,
Menzi Simelane between December 2009 and October 2012, Nomgcobo Jiba in an
acting capacity 2012 to 2013, Mxolisi Nxasana October 2013 to May 2015, his demise
to put it gently will be the subject of evidence in due course, the appointment of Shaun
Abrahams June 2015 to August 2018, Silas Ramaite in an acting capacity, August 2018
to January 2019 and the present incumbent of the post of the National Director of
Public Prosecution Shamila Batohi. I’ve just been correct Chair that Mr Ntlemeza,
Berning Ntlemeza was appointed as the head of the DPCI during the period 2015 to
2017 in a permanent capacity, I’m told but we can clarify that position in due course.

20

Chair you would have been informed by this very rapid and perhaps too
superficial overview of the law enforcement structures which inter alia govern
investigations into and prosecutions of corruption and fraud that the Scorpions, the
Directorate of Special Operations was disbanded in 2009 and its instructive onto look
as we will in more detail in due course at the statistics in relation to the Scorpions. Our
investigation team inform us that by February 2004 the Scorpions had completed 653

Page 28 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
cases comprising 273 investigations which resulted in 380 prosecutions. Of those 380
prosecutions 349 ended in convictions representing an average conviction rate of 92%,
that was the record of the Scorpions from inception to 2004. It is a matter of record,
and this comes from official documentation, Chair, that during 2007 alone the Scorpions
achieved a conviction rate of 94% on 182 cases brought to court. In the first half of
2008, shortly before its demise the Directorate of Special Operations arrested 71
suspects, ceased contra ban to the value of 6.6million rand and compensated crime
victims to the tune of 6.8million rand. That organisation comprised of approximately 500
members nationally and was disbanded in September 2009.
10

Chair for the moment these statistics are illustrative only of a trend and will
be researched and presented to you in more detail in due course but t he question
which will be asked is, firstly, have the law enforcement agencies post 2009 been able
to match that statistic in investigation and prosecution and secondly why was it
necessary for the Directorate of Special Operations to be disbanded, what wa s the
motive for the disbandment of an apparently functional operation to what may be the
result of the evidence replaced by an apparently dysfunctional set of operations. Then
we had an important body at one stage, Chair, called the Anti-Corruption Task Team,
this was a multi-disciplinary task team established and intended to investigate and deal
with, through prosecutions, corruption. It was established after Ngotolo? in January

20

2010, it was mandated by the then President that the cluster comprising the AntiCorruption Task Team, comprising justice, crime prevention and security create such a
team to fast track the investigation and prosecution of cases of corruption. It was also
mandated to investigate, seize and restrain assets and prosecute approxima tely 100
people who had accumulated assets through illicit means of at least 500million –
5million sorry 5million rand. A delivery forum was set up to develop, prioritise and

Page 29 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
operationalise the plan and the first step was to task the principle stakeholder s within
the cluster, the Police Services, the DPCI that’s the Hawks, the National Prosecuting
Authority and the Special Investigation Unit to achieve its aim. Its mandate is
specifically dealt with in the next slide there may be evidence about that later but what
is interesting about this task team is it ultimately became dysfunctional and was
abandoned with very little success at all.
The information that we place before you Chair at a very high level is that, to
an extent at least between 2010 and 2014 the task team was indeed achieving its
mandate. In 2015 the NPA removed prosecutors from the multi-agency work group,
10

court cases collapsed and there was an exodus of other principle stakeholders. Why
and on what basis the National Prosecuting Authority in 2015 stepped out of the task
team is a question that we will address in due course in evidence but what is apparent
that between 2014 and 2015 again, something that was functional became entirely
dysfunctional.

Key personnel were redeployed and the presidential mandate, as

directed in 2010 fell into disuse. In 2018, however, the Anti-Corruption Task Team was
renamed the Serious Corruption Offences Unit and it was dealt with by Serious
Corruption Investigation component of the Hawks and that’s where it resides in an
attempt to resuscitate it at the moment.

The next slide deals, Chair with some

statistical information, again this is illustrative at best, it doesn’t pretend to be final and
20

accurate but it does serve to illustrate trends and to raise questions which the legal
team, together with the investigators will be asking and will seek to answer, ultimately
when the totality of evidence regarding law enforcement agencies is dealt with.
The Anti-Corruption Task Team between 2010 and 2015 received, w e are
told, 148 priority cases. The approximate value of the cases received and that value is,
one presumes the scope of the alleged crimes involved in money terms. The number of

Page 30 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
convictions in priority cases, apparently one and the number of convictions resulting in
non-custodial sentences where accused did not go to prison 80. The SIU, Special
Investigative Unit matters referred to the NPA, you will recall that, that has been
introduced in a previous slide, a total of 686 to the best of our information at present
matters were referred to by the Special Investigations Unit to the NPA during the period
2013 to 2018.

The approximate value or coverage, monetary coverage of those

matters 11billion rand, not one of those have been successfully prosecuted of the 686
cases, to the best of our information and we’re subject to correction but for the moment
we assert a trend.
The Financial Intelligence Centre sent 215 suspicious transaction reports as

10

reported to them to law enforcement agencies, there has been o ne report back from the
law enforcement agencies to the Financial Intelligence Centres. The last column deals
with corruption cases referred to the National Prosecuting Authority by the Kwa -Zulu
Natal Government between 2010 and 2018, this is not an overall statistic, it’s a specific
statistic which will be dealt with in the evidence. 45 cases referred to the National
Prosecuting Authority by the Kwa-Zulu Natal Government in the period 2010 and to
2018 in value in excess of 5million rand and where we are informed by the
investigators, the perpetrators or the alleged perpetrators have been identified in very
detailed
20

forensic

reports, have

resulted

in

zero

prosecutions.

For

the

moment...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: That’s quite high isn’t it over such a long period?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Well Chair, 45 cases referred to the NPA by

the Kwa-Zulu Natal Government between 2010 and 2018 no successful prosecutions,
we are informed that they were thoroughly investigated supported by detailed forensic
reports, at the very least calls for explanation before any final conclusions are drawn.

Page 31 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
The Financial Intelligence Centre 215 reports...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: So what this means is that at least on what you have been told there
were thorough investigations, involving 45 cases during that period 2010 to 2018, they
were referred to the prosecution authorities and there’s been no successful prosecution
at all.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Correct Chair, that evidence will be placed

before you, it will be subject to investigation, it will be subject to further questioning but
that is prima facie what the case is and what the evidence will be. For the present,
Chair, if one may just summarise the slide – well if we can go back to slide 1 and it’s
10

...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to say what this doesn’t tell us and probably we will be
told in due course, is whether, when it has had a number of successful prosecutions,
zero whether we’re dealing with a situation when no prosecutions have ta ken place
altogether or whether every prosecution that has happened has been unsuccessful so
we’ll get to that information in due course.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Again I stand subject to correction but my

information just gathered is that no prosecutions have taken place, let alone successful
prosecutions.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

But Chair the – to the extent that this is

correct, firstly to the extent that it may indicate a trend if one looks at that organisational
structure under our constitution peopled as it is and one looks at the statistics, the
outcome of that structure and its operations Anti-Corruption Task Team 148 priority
cases, one conviction, the SIU referrals 686 no results, the Financial Intelligence
Centre 215 reports, one report back and of course the specific example on the right -

Page 32 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
hand slide. So for the present Chair we ask the question, and in fairness to all
concerned it is a question, are these statistics accurate, we will place evidence before
you, to the extent that they may be slightly subject or subject to slight adjustment, the
trend remains. The question is, is that prima facie there’s a case to be or there’s a
question to be answered, is this trend not very disturbing and very worrying and is th is
not a matter that requires the immediate attention of this Commission and perhaps
those that can manage the situation in due course. So Chair, for the next few days the
evidence of Mr McBride will be given, his evidence will deal principally with IPID, the
Independent Investigative Directorate under the rubric of the Police Force. General
10

Booysen will also give evidence and he will deal with other aspects. Various other
members from the National Prosecuting Authority, the Hawks, Crime Intelligence and
IPID will be called in due course to address the questions that we’ve raised in very
general terms here. That evidence will relate to a number of sub-topics that will be the
removal of persons from positions of authority including investigative heads of units and
staff by means of transfer by arrest, disciplinary processes and the use of the media as
a means of discrediting certain personnel and that evidence will be given. Whether
dismissals, firstly and appointment secondly, were designed deliberately to weaken the
structures that have been placed up before you.
Also will be dealt with in evidence is alleged undue and unwarranted

20

promotion of officials including nepotism. Thirdly we will address the issue of whether
senior police officials and high ranking political office bearers were, in essence,
protected actively and passively through non-prosecution by what happened during
2010 to 2018 and before at the hands of the structure which you have seen. We will
talk about the unjustified withdrawal of criminal cases linked to politically associated
individuals, we will also deal with the alleged abusive state funds including the abusive

Page 33 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
of the Secret Service account for procurement of safe houses, vehicles and overseas
travel and other benefits for beneficiaries who were not entitled thereto lawfully and we
will also deal with the abuse of the Criminal Investigation Agent Programme. Also dealt
with as a sub-category is the means used to classify documents to prevent them ever
being used in prosecutions and the refusal to declassify that documentation. That is
some of the detail which will be covered in evidence to come but the essential question,
if I may refer to it once more in summary Chair is, you’ve seen the organisational
structure in its fullness, the question is whether law enforcement agencies were
manipulated deliberately and weakened deliberately to protect high profile persons or
10

persons in high office in government. We will ask that question and seek to answer it
and further to prosecute selected persons, government officials or members of the
executive to achieve the same end or that, whether that was done in order to further the
aims of corruption and state capture. Chair if I may just finally qualify what we have
said by way of opening, firstly the statistics put up a provisional subject to correction but
in our view they illustrate a very disturbing trend which needs investigation and final
assessment by this Commission.

Secondly, Chair, at the moment we are asking

questions we have not determined that there are any answers except that there
appears to be a very disturbing need to ask these questions and to answer these
questions. The evidence is subject to scrutiny not only by yourself but by those
20

interested parties who will cross-examine, that by way of opening Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Pretorius we are ten minutes before the tea break
maybe we should take the tea break now and then we start with the evidence after.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair.
INQUIRY ADJOURNS
INQUIRY RESUMES

Page 34 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Pretorius.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair. Chair before we proceed
with the evidence I am told that there are number of counsel who wish to place
themselves on record as representing parties.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Let us get them to place themselves on record please?
ADV PHILLIP MAHLTATSI: Good morning Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.
ADV PHILLIP MAHLTATSI:

My name is Phillip Mahltatsi from the Johannesburg Bar.

I hold my rooms at Pitje Chambers in Johannesburg. Chairperson this morning I am
10

appearing or representing Mr Shaun Abrahams who is the former National Director of
Public Prosecution. Chairperson he indicates that he only received the Rule point – the
Rule 3.3. Notice yesterday so as a result we have not been able to properly consult.
So as matters stand obviously everything will then be dependent upon the evidence
that will be led during these proceedings from which then we will make an election
whether or not we choose to apply for cross-examination because I have only had a
perfunctory reading of the affidavit of Mr McBride at this stage obviously without having
consulted with my client I have not made an election as to what happens next.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Okay. You may or may not have heard the – what was said
on Monday when an application was made for the adjournment of the hearing of Mr

20

McBride’s evidence to today but your client will have the period prescribed in the rules
within which to make an application for leave to cross-examine should he choose to
apply and all attempts are being made to make sure that every implicated person will
be afforded enough time to assist their situation and apply for leave to cross -examine
should they wish to do so.

So the fourteen days mentioned in the rules is not

shortened at all and where people are not able to make their applications within that

Page 35 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
time they do have the opportunity if they have got reasons for not having been able to
do it within that time to apply for condonation and such applications will be considered
on their merits. So every attempt will be made to make sure that every implicated
person is treated fairly.
ADV PHILLIP MAHLTATSI: Thank you Chair for your indulgence. In fact before I then
stood here I spoke to my colleague Mr Pretorius SC.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PHILLIP MAHLTATSI: Who has given assurances to the effect?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.
10

ADV PHILLIP MAHLTATSI: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Chair if I may just add one small piece of
information on behalf of the secretariat who issued the notices there was an earlier
email that was indeed sent but somehow it did not reach its destination. I am not sure
why if may be that it was an outdated or incorrect email address.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: But I will at that and try and address the issue
accordingly.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, no that is fine.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: The witness in the – Chair down there at least
– oh I am told that there is another councillor who wishes to put himself on record I was
not informed of that before but…
CHAIRPERSON: Ja okay alright.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: But if you can afford the opportunity Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay let us do that.

Page 36 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: Good morning Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN:

My name is Johan Eksteen from the firm BDK Attorneys.

We are here to represent quite a few of the implicated persons Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: The first one is Lieutenant General Phahlane.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: The former acting commissioner. The current provincial
commissioner of the North West Lieutenant General Motswenyane.
10

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry the North West one is?
ADV JOHAN

EKSTEEN:

Lieutenant General

Phahlane

the

former

acting

commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I got that one.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: And then the current provincial commissioner Lieutenant
General Motswenyane
CHAIRPERSON: Motswenyane?
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: That is correct Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: As well as Major General Mabula.
20

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: And Brigadier Ncuba.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: It is also during the implications of General Mabula th ere is
various members of the North West team that has been implicated who have not been
received any notices but we are here to …

Page 37 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: To represent them.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: There was just one aspect Chair that I brought this morning
to the secretary’s attention that the notice that was issued to Leiutenant General
Motswenyane.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: Was indeed defective because it was issued to her husband.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh okay.
10

ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: It was only realised after it was served on him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: That it is not for him but for her.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh okay.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: So there is an undertaking they will rectify.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN:

Because the problem here is Chair is that all of these

persons that we represent needs to approach the state attorney.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: For authorisation.
20

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: That they be represented by us and by council.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: At a later stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: And if there is a defective notice clearly that would not be

Page 38 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
granted.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja. Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: So therefore I – were here on Monday as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: I know about the indulgence that…
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: The Chair has explained.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: This was brought under the attention of the …
10

CHAIRPERSON: Secretariat.
ADV JOHAN EKSTEEN: Implicated persons; they are satisfied with that and we will
abide by it.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. No thank you, thank you very much. Steps will just have to be
taken by the legal team and the secretary to correct whatever errors or defects that
may have – that some of the notices may have suffered from. Yes thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair. Just to add to that. I am not
sure whether any correspondence or communications have been addressed to this
secretariat.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: In regard to these issues.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: But I have made a note of them.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And I will raise them with the secretariat and
deal with them accordingly.

Page 39 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. And maybe to the extent that it may be necessary maybe
the legal team for these people Mr Eksteen maybe they can formalise by way of a letter
send something to the secretary if they have not already done so to say these are the
issues.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: That we would like to be rectified.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: I certainly to the best of my knowledge at least
have not received any communication.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
10

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Of that sense but…
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Given the administrative burden that the

secretariat has to deal with those communications are useful so they can be dealt with
timeously.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja okay thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Chair may Mr McBride be sworn?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Registrar.
REGISTRAR: Please state your full names for the record?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Robert John McBride.
20

REGISTRAR: Do you have any objections to taking the prescribed oath?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: No.
REGISTRAR: Do you consider the oath to be binding on your conscience?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
REGISTRAR: Do you swear that the evidence that you will give will be the truth; the
whole truth and nothing but the truth and if so please raise your right hand and say, so

Page 40 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
help me God.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: So help me God.
REGISTRAR: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Well before we start Mr McBride I just want to say to you I thank you
for coming forward to assist this commission when you have knowledge of matters that
you believe fall within the terms of reference of this commission. As you know as
everybody knows I have been appealing to heads of departments, government
departments, heads of parastatals past and present and heads of various sections or
units to please come forward and other people and I appreciate that you came forward.
10

You might not have needed any appeal to be made you may well have intended to
come with or without an appeal but I thank you that you have come forward and to
assist the commission. Thank you very much.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thank you Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Mr McBride before you and for the benefit of
the Chair you have Exhibit Y. Exhibit Y is made up of four bundles Exhibit YA, YB, YC
and YD. Your statement is contained if you could just get it please in Exhibit YA.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes I have it Chair.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right if you would go to page 33 please? Do
you have it?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Whose signature is that on page 33?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It is
CHAIRPERSON: There are two signatures there I guess you mean the one above his

Page 41 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
name?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It is my signature Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right and you on the face of it attested to this
affidavit on the 13 February 2019, is that correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Since then your status has changed but we will
deal with that in a moment. If you would go back to page 1 please of that document?
Is this your affidavit?
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Are you satisfied that the contents are true and
correct subject to some minor amendments which we will make in due course?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: The amendments Chair of minor nature but
they will be included as is the current practice in a supplementary affidavit.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Which we will seek to deal with…
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Such matters as are necessary and may

20

emerge in evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Mr McBride your statement says that you are
or were in February at least the Executive Director of the Independent Police
Investigative Directorate?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.

Page 42 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Your status has since February changed what
is the position now?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: The process which involved Parliament on the nonextension of contract has been taken on review but in the meantime I have been
considered for employment in another department.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Okay. Your curriculum vitae is attached. We
need not go there insofar as the Chair may wish to ask you questions. He may but it is
known that you do have political affiliations historically, what is the relevance because I
know you hold strong views about this for the purposes of your evidence, what is your
10

attitude to the relevance of your political affiliations to your histor y with IPID and your
evidence today?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes I am – I have been all my life and still I am a
member of the ANC but in the position of Executive Director of the Independent Police
Investigative Directorate I had to exercise my tasks independently without consideration
of political affiliations.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Would you tell the Chair a little of IPID the
Independent Police Investigative Directorate? What is its function?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

In essence Chair the IPID is there to exercise

oversight and investigative oversight over the police services and the municipal police.
20

It is established through Section 206(6) of The Constitution and also by Act 1 of 2011
which is the IPID Act which came into effect on the 1 April 2012.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Is it governed by any legislation?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Indeed Chair it is the Independent Police Investigative
Directorate Act and all other relevant acts including issues related to most aspects of
the Public Service Administration Act, Public Finance Management Act and all relevant

Page 43 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
Acts for government entities and departments.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Under which Ministry notionally at least does
IPID fall?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chairperson it falls under the Ministry of Police at
present.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Now the powers of the Minister of Police and
powers afforded by the constitution or the constitutionality of the powers afforded by
legislation have been the subject of some litigation which recently came before the
constitutional court we will deal with that in a moment but very briefly the constitutional
10

court we will learn in a matter in – of which you certainly have knowledge and were
involved. The powers afforded by the constitution and legislation of the Minister of
Police are limited.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And the constitutional court has we will see
and we will refer to that judgment in due course emphasise the independe nce of IPID?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Indeed Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Under your watch how important was it and
why is it important that IPID be independent?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Well essentially the investigative oversight over the

20

South African Police Services and Municipal Police deals with their conduct and holding
them to account for their conduct both in terms of misconduct and alleged criminal
activities. And very often there is an automatic natural tension between the intentions
of the Minister which is to get – to provide policy and direction for the police service so
they can carry out their work effectively and at the same time with the work that IPID
does very often we expose and take to court or to take to disciplinarians after the

Page 44 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
gathering of evidence information which would throw the police in a negative light
including issues relating to criminality or misconduct. That necessarily puts the Minister
and the Executive Director of IPID with some kind of institutional tension i n the way it is
established. On previous occasions we have – there has also been interference and
undue interference and the results of various court cases which culminated in the
constitutional court including those that relate to DPCI are inter -connected to what
independence means; what is the extent of the independence and it has been more
recently defined with the corrupt – more recently defined; more acutely with the
corruption watch judgment from the constitutional court on matters relating to the
10

National Director of Public Prosecutions.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Apart from the uncertainty related to your
present status, for what period were you the Executive Director of IPID?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair it was for – I was nominated and confirmed by
the Minister and confirmed by Parliament for a period of five year which is linked to the
legislation as it stands now.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Oh is that from 2014 to 2019?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: How – during your watch how large or what
was the staff compliment of IPID?

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: At all relevant times Chair the staff compliment was
between 380 and 400 depending on people leaving a vacancies. So roughly in that
range 380.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And of that staff how many investigators were
there?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Of that Chair is about 260 to 270 investigators at all

Page 45 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
relevant times.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And I understand that the staff compliment
including investigators of IPID are spread and located in all provinces?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And the head office of IPID is in Pretoria?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright. To whom would you as an Executive
Director report both strategically and functionally? If you could explain the distinction
between the two reporting lines of which we are now aware to the Minister of Police on
10

the one hand and to Parliament on the other?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Strategically and administratively it would be to the
Minister of Police and in terms of accountability and expenditure of funds and oversight
and accountability on how we carried out our functions it would be to Parliament. In
terms of accountability also we have the Auditor General, Public Service Commission,
Public Service and Administration.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: SCOPA? The Select Committee on Public
Accounts?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Absolutely Sir. And in fact in any committee of the –
Parliament could call us in to – to account to them.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Is there a Portfolio Committee to which you
report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: There is a Portfolio the Parliamentary Committee and
Police.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And how often are you required to report to
that committee?

Page 46 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

I would estimate at least twice a month from

experience off the top of my head but quite often.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: The IPID Act if we may refer to it as such came
into effect I understand on the 1 April 2012?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Is your budget accounted for separately from
that of the police budget?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And IPID succeeded the former Independent
10

Complaints Directorate, am I correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Would you for the benefit of the Chair and
other interested parties just try and give some practical examples of the work that IPID
is mandated to do?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thanks Chair. Under Section 28 there are number of
misconduct / criminal aspects which gives specific mandate to us wh ich includes
assault by a police officer. Includes death whilst in detention, death by police action,
rape by a police officer, rape whilst in custody, that is in police custody, corruption and
then there is Section 28(2) which deals with systemic corruption and there is a Section

20

under 29(1)H which makes provision for investigations to be initiated upon complaint
from the Minister or a MEC or initiated on the instance of the Executive Director on any
matter. So 28(1)H allows for IPID to initiate investig ations.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Alright if we may then turn to Exhibit Y

Annexure A on page 34 of bundle YA.

Page 35 that is the Independent Police

Investigative Directorate Act. For the sake of completeness I would like to refer to you

Page 47 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
certain sections of that Act and as your responsibilities will become the subject matter
of your evidence in due course if we could refer to Section 7.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I have it here.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

That highlights or stipulates rather the

responsibilities of the Executive Director. Section 7.2 what does that provide?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

The Executive Director’s responsible for the

appointment of Provincial Heads of each province as contemplated in Section 22.1
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And Section 3A/
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: The Executive Director must appoint such staff as may
10

be necessary to enable the Directorate to perform its functions in terms of this act.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: If we could just pause there because it is
important in relation to the independence of IPID.

Who appoints the Executive

Director?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: The Executive Director is appointed ultimately by
Parliament but he is nominated at this stage by the Minister
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright. And apart from the appointment of the
Executive Director all appointment subordinate to the Executive Director are made by
whom?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: By the Executive Director ultimately.
20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And I take it that that is one of the mechanisms
utilised to ensure the independent of IPID from other Law Enforcement Agencies and
particularly the South African Police Service?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Sir. In Section 4.2 of the Act it is quite
clear that IPID is separate from the South African Police Services.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Perhaps we should go there because it is

Page 48 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
relevant. Section 4 of the IPID Act reads:
“The Directorate functions independently from the South African
Police Services.”
And 4.2 reads:
“Each organ of state must assist the Directorate to maintain its
impartiality and to perform its functions effectively.”
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Those provisions are relevant to the

Constitutional Court judgment to which we will refer later. Then Section 7.4 having
10

conducted its investigations in relation to conduct of members of the South African
Police Service what happens to the investigation and who determines the outcome of
the investigation?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Ultimately the decision to prosecute or not prosecute
rests with the National Prosecuting Authority but after investigation and accumulation of
evidence it would then – is then handed directly to the National Prosecuting Authority.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Section 7.4 then reads:
“The Executive Director must refer criminal offences revealed as
a result of an investigation to the National Prosecuting Authority
from criminal prosecution and notify the Minister of such referral.”

20

Now firstly the import of that particular section and the duty placed expressly on the
Executive Director becomes relevant later in your evidence I understand?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And it seems that there should be a record of
all such notifications to the sitting Minister of Police of any referrals from IPID to the
NPA. Correct?

Page 49 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct sir.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: If we can go then to Section 24. Section 24
deals with the investigative powers. Again these will become relevant later in evidence.
Would you perhaps please read Section 24.1 and two onto the record and make any
comment you wish in relation to those sections?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Okay. 24.1:
“An investigator may subject to the control and direction of the
Executive Director or the relevant provincial head exercise
such powers and must perform such duties as are conferred or
10

imposed upon him or her by or under this Act or any other la w
and must obey all lawful directions which he or she may from
time to time receive from a person having authority to give such
directions under this Act.”
And in terms of 24.2:
“An investigator has the powers as provided for in the Criminal
Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977 which are bestowed upon a
Peace Officer or a police official relating to the investigation of
offences, the ascertainment of bodily features of an accused
person, the entry and search of premises, the seizure and

20

disposal of articles, arrests, the execution of warrants, the
attendance of an accused person in court.”
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

To summarise although IPID is there to

exercise oversight over members of the South African Police Services.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Investigators who are seconded to IPID or who

Page 50 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
are employed by IPID have police powers in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Indeed that is.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: If we could go then to Section 28 which is on
page 46 of Annexure A. Section 28 delineates the matters of the type of matters that
are to be investigated by IPID. You have mentioned some. The complete list is there in
Section 28. Would you read those onto the record please?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Thank you. In terms of 28.1A:
“The Directorate must investigate a, any deaths in police
custody, deaths as a result of police action, any complaint
relating to the discharge of an official firearm by any police

10

officer, rape by a police officer whether the police officer is on
or off duty, rape by any person while that person is in police
custody, any complaint of torture or assault against a police
officer in the execution of his or her duties, corruption matters
within the police initiated by the Executive Director on his or her
own or after the receipt of a complainant from a member of the
public or refer to the Directorate, by a Minister, an MEC or the
Secretary as the case maybe.”
The Secretary here being the Secretary for Police.
20

And then H:
“Any other matter referred to as a result of a decision by the
Executive Director or if so requested by the Minister and MEC
or the Secretary as the case maybe.”
And then Section 28.2:
“The Directorate may investigate matters relating to systemic

Page 51 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
corruption involved in the police.”
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Before we move to the regulations insofar as
they may be relevant do any or does any other Law Enforcement Agency have the
power or does any Minister particularly the Minister of Police have the power to control
or exercise any influence over IPID investigations?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Absolutely not Chairperson.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

In paragraph 7 you say that there are

regulations which govern amongst other things the duties of investigators. Would you
tell the Chair please what investigators must do in relation to investigations and the
10

reporting of the outcome of their investigations please? Again this is a matter relevant
to your evidence.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: In – in terms of the regulations the investigator must
submit the relevant evidence to his supervisor which ultimately will become the
Provincial Head of the Executive Director before it is signed off to the National
Prosecuting Authority.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: If I may refer you to page 61 of Annexure A to
your statement. Sorry it is Annexure B now. We have moved to Annexure B which is
apparent from page 57 are the regulations governing the operation of IPID. Do you see
that on page 57?

20

MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes, I have it.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: We can go to page 61. Regulation 5(3)(i), if
you would just read that onto the record and make any comment you wish to in that
regard. I suppose we should read the introductory portion of the previous pa ge next to
the number three. This is Regulation 4(3) which reads:
“An investigator designated in terms of Sub Regulation 2 must

Page 52 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
as soon as is practicable but within 24 hours of designation.”
And then we get to (i).
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: If you could just deal with that please.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Thank you Chair and it reads as follows:
“After collection all evidence statements and technical or expert
reports if applicable submit a report on the investigation of the
death containing recommendations regarding further action
which may include disciplinary measures to be taken against a
10

member of the South African Police Service or the Municipal
Police Service or criminal prosecution of such a member to the
Executive Director or the relevant Provincial Head as the case
maybe.”
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Now this deals specifically with deaths, but in
relation to other matters investigated by IPID do similar provisions apply/
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Absolutely.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So if an investigator conducts an investigation
what is the reporting line and brief?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: It is to the – if it is within a province and it is initiated

20

in a province or delegated to a province to deal with it would be the Provincial Head
who then signs it off for submission to the National Prosecuting Authority. If it is
initiated at National or in certain circumstances covers more than one province it would
come to the Executive Director ultimately and signed off for submission to the National
Prosecuting Authority.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Before we leave these general matters there is

Page 53 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
another matter about which I would like to ask and obtain information for further
evidence that will be led. We know that Crime Intelligence falls within the South African
Police Service organisation?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

And we know that IPID may investigate

conduct within the South African Police Service?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Am I correct that IPID has the power to

investigate conduct within Crime Intelligence.
10

MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Absolutely sir.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

We will lead evidence in due course

concerning conduct within Crime Intelligence but in the course and conduct of your
duties as Executive Director of IPID did you come across any particular problem with
relation to your investigations into Crime Intelligence and if you could tell the Chai r
briefly about that please?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Thank you. Chair to be accurate any request for
information from Crime Intelligence except for a brief period is generally met with
resistance and very often Crime Intelligence will resort to speeches, classifications of
documents in Contravention of the Policy on Minimum Information Security Standards
20

which forbids the usage of classification to cover up maladministration or criminal
conduct and as an example I can give. In an investigation of abuse o f state resources
a senior officer who was not entitled to make use of an official SAPS vehicle made use
of such a vehicle and it was reported to us and we investigated. Upon the investigators
requesting the log book of the vehicle to ascertain the days and number and stated
purpose of usage it immediately became a classified document. As to who classified

Page 54 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
the document for what purpose and when upon query telephonically investigators were
told well that is also classified and this has resulted in a matter which on classification
which is before the High Court to deal with this issue once and for all because this
issue will bedevil future investigations including investigations where there are
Commissions of inquiry.

As legislation and penalty and sanction for spurious

classifications will go – continue to go unpunished.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Mr McBride was this an isolated example?

Was it more than isolated? In other words could you just give the Chair some indication
of how often this occurred?
10

MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE:

Chair it is not isolated.

It is the general pattern

including even cooperation. For a brief period there was cooperation from the Acting
Division Commissioner of Crime Intelligence Mokushane who had instructed people to
cooperate with us in terms of the law but that was only for a few months. Generally
there is a problem and to – there is actually what we call in IPID a “blue curtain” which I
think firstly the – the South African Police Services one of the oldest organisations in
South Africa if not the oldest and as such it has old customs, traditions and practices
and that generally makes any organisation resistant to any change. In particular for a
long time there was – there was not any effective oversight over the South African
Police Services in its various forms and developments. The result is that there is an
20

instinctive resistance to any oversight or query or to hold account. It is particularly so
within Crime Intelligence which has part of their mandate as with other countries the
cultivation of sources, informers and in the context of dealing with organised crime who
are generally secretive to be able to infiltrate these criminal syndicates that they are
required to have some element of secrecy. That is – is understandable and that is the
purpose of the usage of the Secret Service Account of Crime Intelligence. More often

Page 55 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
than not even before my appointment to IPID there is evidence and history of cases
where there has been rampant abuse and a sense of impunity in the exercise of the
usage of the Secret Service Account of Crime Intelligence and that also goes towards
the classification. So there is what is termed in auditing “limited assurance” or “no
assurance” given to how funds are spent, whether there is value for money, whether
they spent correctly or they have been abused fraudulently. It is – it is not transparent
at all. There are a number of cases which were initially handled by DPCI and then
jointly between ourselves and DPCI and one of those cases off the top of my head is
involving a case where a prosecution of the Former Divisional Commissioner of Crime
10

Intelligence had to be stopped midway because there was a refusal to do declassified
documents. What is ironic about that and indicates the frivolity of that decision is the
fact that the same evidence that was suddenly classified for the criminal case was used
in a disciplinary to get one of the co-conspirators dismissed. So the evidence has been
– it is out there in public but it is for a technical matter. On a number of cases we have
even written to the Minister – the present Minister - to assist with the declassification
process upon which we were sent to the Inspector General of Intelligence who has the
mandate to look at any document and [intervenes].
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: This is the point I wanted to get to. I am sorry
for interrupting you.

20

MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: My apologies.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: To deal with that particular aspect of evidence.
Were these reported to your oversight institute that is the Director General of
Intelligence and what happened as a result thereof?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes. Thank you Chair. In terms of the lack of clarity
or if I can venture to say the wilful lack of clarity and classification and resistance to

Page 56 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
oversight the IPID and Inspector General of Intelligence decided to sign a MOU to
ensure cooperation between the two bodies which have oversight roles over Crime
Intelligence and from IPID the wider SAPS. Out of the MOU – the MOU made provision
for a task team – a joint task team to look at matters in particular abuse of the fund and
corruption within Crime Intelligence. As such I am confident to say that a litany of
corruption was brought to our attention through the collaboration with the Inspector
General of Intelligence. It also became known to me that the Inspector General and
even previous ones have written what they call a “certificate” on the state of affairs of
the use of the Secret Service Account and none of that was taken seriously in terms of
10

consequence management for officers who were involved in that. For example some
people would in charge of an urgent network and then according to the allegations and
evidence and knowledge from collaboration of the IGI would then emplo y members of
their family as agents and draw off a salary or an agent fee or source fees from the
Crime Intelligence Fund.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Mr McBride without asking you for a definitive
answer in relation to statistics in relation to a successful or intended prosecutions do
you know of any successful prosecution – criminal prosecution – arising out of the
circumstances to which you have just referred the Chair?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: No sir. At this point I have – I have no knowledge of a

20

prosecution.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr McBride as I understand your evidence – part of your evidence –
that you have given in regard to the – to Crime Intelligence it is that you have instances
where there has been resistance to giving information to IPID when IPID has certain
investigations to conduct and as I understand in some cases you might be able to go

Page 57 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
further and say not just resistance but actually attempts to frustrate those - the
investigations.

Now is that happening or has that been happening despite the

provisions of Section 4 of the Act that Mr Pretorius quoted earlier on which says in part:
“Each organ of state must assist the Directorate to maintain its
impartiality and to perform its functions effectively.”
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Chair that cooperation which should be forthcoming
has been in many specific especially senior police ranks being resisted, being.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Obstructed.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: There is a willingness to cooperate for lower ranks.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And to assist but the moment it reaches a certain level
there is resistance.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And very often we have to resort to Section 205
summonses.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: To obtain information.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And in a very recent one which is emanating from
2017 it is claimed that the issues in which we require information about and namely i n
this case what was the purpose of a meeting. It is – there was refusal to give it to us
and then we applied for a 205. It was granted and a number of senior police officers
then went to the High Court to oppose the 205 hearing that was imminent. It wa s about

Page 58 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
to happen.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: That is 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act?
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct. That is a matter of litigation at the
moment. Where even from the side of the Inspector General of Intelligence on that
matter and other related matters the Inspector General has provided an information
note to the Minister of Police that none of the matters that were raised in the
information note that I had sent to the Minister of Police on these classi fication matters
if declassified holds any threat – will not cause any threat to sources employed by
10

Crime Intelligence nor for the security of the state and in fact from the assessment of
the Inspector General of Intelligence that the matters referred to appear to be about
procurement only and the activities constitute maladministration and possibly criminal
activity. So we have even gone to lengths to have joint workshops at the insistence –
instance and coordination of the IGI with Crime Intelligence an d IPID to resolve the
issues of mandates and we have discussed these issues. We still have not had joy.
There is a kind of impasse by legislation and by practice where the person to declassify
would be the head of an agency and the agency in this case in terms of the Intelligence
Oversight Act would be the Head of the Service. So the Act makes it quite clear that in
terms of Crime Intelligence it will be the Divisional Commissioner. Yet the practice in

20

SAPS is that power is assumed by the National Commissioner. Whereas the Act is
quite clear that the National Commissioner for this purpose is to – his responsibility is to
deal with administration and financial issues as it relates to Crime Intelligence and that
the Head of the Service in terms of the definition is the Divisional Commissioner. Yet
there seems to be a reluctance by the Divisional Commissioner to utilise his powers to
declassify.

Page 59 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: We may just summarise that point you just
made. It is that people who may not independent or impartial in relation to a particular
mechanism used to restrict the flow of information in particular classification of
documents is entrusted with that very duty.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Sorry.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So if you – let me put it another way. You are
investigating.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Ja.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: In your IPID capacity misconduct within the
10

police. Documents are classified. You – your evidence is to obstruct the free flow of
information to IPID.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes sir.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: In order to breach that barrier you need the
permission of the very organisation that you are investigating?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Indeed sir. That is the – the problem we experience
regularly.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright. If we may then move onto page 3 of
your statement where you give an overview of the nature and purpose of the evidence

20

that you are giving from a factual point of view.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Should I go ahead?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes please. Just deal with the points you
make on page 3 from paragraph 9 and following.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE:

Okay.

The purpose of my evidence before the

Commission to assist the Commission is to express my own personal experiences as

Page 60 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
Executive Director of IPID what I observed and what evidence brought to light a number
of litigations, court cases, judgments have indicated and led me to firmly believe that
there was an attack on anti-corruption institutions and that my suspension on
25 March 2015 was part of that process to take control of independent anti-corruption
bodies and remove the heads by suspension, spurious disciplinaries and then to
supplant them with compliant people who would not carry out their task diligently and in
particular.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: If we may but before you go on Mr McBride
may we just highlight two features of your evidence. You have told the Chair that there
10

is a general issue that you wish to address and that is the weakening of an interference
with oversight bodies and the… (break in audio – sound engineer taken ill)
INQUIRY ADJOURNS
INQUIRY RESUMES
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed Mr Pretorius.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair. Mr McBride you were about
to tell the Chair of your response to the potential criticism of your evidence that you
have a personal axe to grind as a result of your treatment over the past year or so, and
that it doesn’t really fit within the terms of reference of the Commission, which is
investigating the effectiveness of the law enforcement agencies including oversight

20

bodies and dealing with State Capture, corruption and fraud.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thanks Chair, in response to that I will say there’s a
litany of cases, litigation, judgments, persecution, not only to myself whoever was in
that position either had to succumb to the interference or stand up and what I am
expressing here is backed up by evidence, affidavits, dockets and judgments, all the
way up to the Constitutional Court, so it’s, whilst I’m expressing it personally it’s as in

Page 61 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
my professional capacity as Executive Director and what the Department experienced
and I also look at it not in isolation to IPID but in relation to what was ha ppening in
other departments.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: If your evidence which you will give indeed is
accepted by the Chair one might ask the question why would anybody be interested in
weakening or hollowing out or reducing the effectiveness of an oversight body such as
IPID, whose interests would it serve?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Okay, Chairperson in answer to that question a few
years ago I came to the conclusion and expressed myself publicly on that but I had also
10

engaged with other affected persons from other organisations and the public statement
I made was that it’s to cover crimes that have been committed before, crimes being
committed in the present at that time and crimes that were planned to take place in the
future and as a result of those discussions I found out I was not the only person that
has come to that conclusion.
A meeting was arranged with members who had also suffered the same
persecution from SARS, from DPCI, and from IPID and where we discussed these
matters, we had our meeting formally with interested parties and NGO’s at the Nelson
Mandela Foundation in which we expressed our concerns on what was taking place in
the country. In fact at a certain stage myself, General Dramat and Ivan Pillay released

20

a joint statement to that effect, that this is concerted effort to weaken anti-corruption
bodies and there can be no reasonable explanation why you would want to weaken
anti-corruption and crime fighting bodies except a nefarious one, and in order to
succeed at what you are doing you would have to – the word obviously is used from the
Commission now, Capture the State and Institutions of the State. At the time we used
the term “silent coupe” or “political gangsterism” was the two terms we used then within

Page 62 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
our affected circles.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So now Mr McBride you will relate to the Chair
those circumstances which you personally experienced which together with other
information which you have learnt over time has led you to draw the conclusions that
you have drawn and will draw at the conclusion of your testimony.
CHAIRPERSON: Before you do that Mr McBride do you know whether that statement
that you and Mr Pillay released is in one of the bundles or if not that you can still get a
copy?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I’m not certain Chairperson but I’m sure a copy of that
10

can be obtained, it’s in the archives somewhere.
CHAIRPERSON: Can be found, yes okay I think it would be helpful to – if it can be
found. Do you have a recollection of around when it was when you and Mr Pillay
released that statement.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It was 20 – if I can estimate 2015/2016.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay no that’s fine. Thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Was there any response to the statement of

which you’re aware, public response or official response?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: No I’m not aware of any public responses; I’m not on
social media so I was not aware of the general sentiment in regard to that but privately
20

people I knew agreed to it or said well it gets one thinking and then the pattern was a
similar pattern in all these institutions and we had identified when the affected group
came together there be some leak, some investigation, something goes to the media,
suspensions and disciplinary on some spurious ground and immediately new people
appointed, in acting position and they immediately go about restructuring the
departments of which they have now acting control over and as a result in the IPID also

Page 63 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
interference with investigations. In one instance and the same boat i n IPID, DPCI and
in SARS the same narrative comes out and it goes like this, while since the change or
the removal of so and so performance has gone up, so you heard it from SARS which
is not my department, you heard it from – in that case it was the former Commissioner
Moyane, in the instance of Nklemesa in DPCI it’s the same thing, where it comes to
IPID in fact we now have evidence that statistics were jippo’d to give the indication of
improvement in performance and indeed the acting executive director G amanjane told
Parliament that there’s been an improvement in the performance of IPID.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:
10

You will deal with that matter expressly in t

detail in due course.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

So in paragraph 10 you say that you will

explain your suspension on 25 March 2015 and you will also deal with ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: 20 Mr Pretorius, I think you said 25, it’s 20 March.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

To be corrected Chair in a supplementary

affidavit, the correct date is 25 th .
CHAIRPERSON: Oh your one has already been corrected, okay.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: What is the correct date?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It’s 24th of 25th , it’s not the 20 th. It’s later on Chair, it
20

mentions in the statement the correct date.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay no that’s fine.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: We will deal with that appropriately Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay alright.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: You say you will also deal with suspensions
and transfers of persons other than yourself, just explain that in very, very broad

Page 64 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
headline terms to the Chair please.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thanks Chair. In essence people who would be for
example specialists in a particular field, like Chief Financial Officer, would be
transferred to head investigations in a province and a Chief Financial Officer has
statutory powers and statutory obligations and in this particular instance has no – does
not have any investigative criminal or police investigative capacity or training, it’s not
that way orientated, the person is oriented towards financial matters, then gets put to
head a province as a Provincial Head of Investigations. Similarly a head of legal
services whose expertise, the person is a jurist, an advocate, that person is then
10

transferred to head another province and for investigations as a provincial head, and
there are quite a number of them and I have noted them down in – during the
preparation of this statement.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: You will give detailed examples at the end of
your statement?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

But in general you are saying that

appointments, dismissals, transfers had a particular effect on I PID, what was that
effect?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:
20

Well the immediate effect was to make it

dysfunctional, one of the instances I was covering earlier is the provision of special
closure in the SOP’s was a abused to prematurely close cases or bring them to finality
so that it can appear that IPID has gone through all these cases at rapid speed.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Yes if I may just request that we leave that

issue to where you will deal with it in detail but basically what you are saying is tha t
statistics were manipulated.

Page 65 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: But we will come to that if we may in its proper
time, I don’t want to prevent you from dealing with it at all. Your suspension was lifted
...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe before you proceed Mr Pretorius I just want to have
clarification on this you said something like the immediate effect was I think to make
IPID dysfunctional but I just want to draw your attention because that seems to me to
suggest that whatever those people did who were effecting these transfers or were
making decisions on these transfers and suspensions and so on that it did result in IPID
10

being dysfunctional as opposed to saying their intention or motive was to make IPID, to
render IPID dysfunctional, but whether they succeeded or not might be something else,
I just want to check what you have in mind when you articulate that.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

Thank you Chair.

Key investigations suddenly

stagnated, we also had the situation, which I will deal with later where to indicate that it
was orchestrated we had at least three, possibly four members of Crime Intelligence
being appointed to IPID and getting involved immediately with investigations. Some of
these Crime Intelligence officials then recycled themselves later, after our return they
leave IPID, they go back to Crime Intelligence and other units and are involved in the
process of porting investigations, the exact same people who came from SAPS Crime
20

Intelligence, coming to IPID, after we are on suspension and on return they leave.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, no that’s fine, I think from what you have said and later on you
can elaborate if you want to, from what you have said at least I get the impression that
at some stage there may have been an effect up to a certain level of making IPID
dysfunctional. Ja, okay, thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Your suspension was ultimately lifted, is that

Page 66 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Was that on the 6 th of September 2016?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct sir.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

And you had then been suspended for

approximately 18 months?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: What led to the lifting of your suspension?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: A number of issues, one challenging the Ministers’
10

powers in terms of how they act to unilaterally suspend the Executive Director of IPID,
to unilaterally begin a disciplinary process and we went initially to the Court on an
urgent basis and at that stage the urgency was not accepted, the urgency argument
and we then went on the Pod B to High Court in which the High Court indeed found that
the Minister did not have unilateral powers as purpor ted in the Act as it stood then.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And what, if I may just interject there, we will
come to the judgment of Bosielo, AJ in due course, in detail, but what informed that
judgment and the principle that underlay the reasoning in that judgment was in fact the
independent of IPID from the Police Department hierarchy, including the Minister, am I
correct?

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct, it’s the independence of IPID from
SAPS but independence in its own right and in addition the independence of the
Executive Director, because the independence also manifests itself in the head of the
institution, and this has been as I indicated earlier more acutely defined in the more
recent judgment from the Constitutional Court on what independence means, what’s the
extent of it.

Page 67 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: For a head of an independent organisation.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: You refer in paragraph 12 again just in general
terms and perhaps we should keep it at that level because there will be further
evidence from those involved, to others who suffered the same fate or the same
attempted fate as you did, just names those people please?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

Well it would be I would include General Anwar

Dramat who was the head of DPCI, and then General Shadrack Sibiya who was the
Provincial Head of DPCI in Gauteng and then General Johan Booysen who was the
10

Provincial Head of DPCI in KwaZulu Natal.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

The criminal charges that were brought

against General Sibiya and Dramat against your IPID colleagues who were involved
with you in the narrative that you are about to relate and yourself what happened to
those charges ultimately?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: The charges were withdrawn because according to
the Prosecutor there isn’t evidence to sustain the prosecution which obviously left us
dumbfounded because we couldn’t explain why we were arrested, and prosecuted if no
evidence existed why it was the priority crimes litigation unit that was involved in the
prosecution of the matter whereas the charges by every stretch of the imagination
20

would amount to fraud and so there was from the onset no case, no evidence and in
addition to that there was never in terms of proper allegations or accusations the
accused people are supposed to receive clear indication on what evidence they are
being charged on, the basis for the allegation. Certain aspects of the docket which are
normally given to other accused were refused to us, we find out also the vindictiveness
of the situation where the complainant almost by proxy in the case is – and this was

Page 68 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
after the High Court victory in 2015 December, it’s actually the Minister himself who
was the complainant.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Alright, we will come to the detail in due

course, if I may just keep to the scheme of your statement which is at this stage just an
overview of what you will testify to. In paragraph 14 from your own knowledge or
observation in your position as IPID head you mentioned as contrasted with the
prosecutions that did take place or attempted prosecutions that did take place, and
we’re referred to some of those in the opening statement before the Chair, there were
prosecutions that did not take place which you say ought to have at least found their
10

way to the court at some stage. Just highlight those please for the Chair.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chairperson the one particular case is
related to procurement during the 2010 World Cup and specifically a case of bribery to
in particular Major General Booysen, well an attempted bribery because the suspects
were arrested, a policeman by the name of Toshan Panday were – all evidence was
provided and up till today the person hasn’t been prosecuted on the br ibery case.
General Ndluli who I referred to earlier about the curious case of the classification of
really – a document which should be already public, then General Pathlane, General
Mabula, General Mabula’s is in particular serious because it involves a series of torture
incidents including torture of policemen following a robbery from a police station of

20

exhibits which came out of a cash in transit heist and a number of people were tortured
in order to solve the case of the missing money from the police station.
These cases come from 2010/.2011, there was initially prosecution started
then mysteriously withdrawn until we then queried it and we have a paper trail of
querying it and raising it with the then National Director of Public Prosecutions as to
why these matters, which occurred mainly in the Northwest at that stage have not been

Page 69 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
re-enrolled. Now in fairness National Prosecuting Authority at that stage had decided to
prosecute the suspects of a unit which was headed by General Mabula in three
different locations and three different jurisdictions within the Northwest. The matters
were then in 2011, I’m not sure, or latest 2012, provisionally withdrawn to centralise the
cases and the cases involved assault GBH and if the Act had been passed by then it
would have been clearly torture. There is also a case where a suspect died where by
all accounts the evidence indicates that this unit was responsible including recordings
of people admitting to involvement in torture and we enquired and we continued
engaging with the National Prosecuting Authority to get these matters going.
Eventually a case was enrolled but out of the seven suspects only two are on

10

trial for that – for all intents and purposes the torture.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Alright those are some examples that you

have to illustrate the point that you’re making. In paragraph 15 Mr McBride you say in
my view that both the prosecutions and the non-prosecutions to which you’re referring
is the modus operandi that has been used to capture law enforcement agencies
including the National Prosecuting Authority and has led to a weakened criminal justice
system, that’s your conclusion.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:
20

And the purpose of your evidence and the

evidence of others is to ask the question to the Chair and for the Chair to make findings
and recommendations in regard to the issues is to whether the facts to which you and
others will testify support that thesis or do they not support that thesis ?
If we may then move to a new topic, DCJ I am told that it’s almost one
o’clock, the next paragraph will be quite a lengthy topic with a long exposition I am
sure.

Page 70 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we will take the lunch adjournment and we will resume at two
o’clock, we adjourn.
INQUIRY ADJOURNS
INQUIRY RESUMES
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Pretorius.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair. Mr McBride before the long
adjournment you spoke of an article that you presented to the media in I think in May
2016 it is that you authored together with Ivan Pillay and Anwar Dramat, do you recall
that?
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair it was a statement that we jointly
released.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Would you just look at the document now being
shown to you please and identify that? We can then add it to the bundle and paginate
it and refer to it later in your evidence if the need arises.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Is that the article?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes I think this is it, yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: But a statement was released Chair and so I would

20

imagine some of the aspects of the statement are included in here.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes we will deal with matters which arise from
this article in due course to the extent necessary and to the extent not already covered
by your existing evidence. But as long as you have identified it we can then add it to
the bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: But is the position that it is an article based on the statement and not

Page 71 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
the statement itself or is it the statement that they released?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Can you assist the Chair there please? Is this
the statement you released?
CHAIRPERSON: Or you might need more time to have a look at the contents I am not
sure.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Or you – yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair it appears to the statement that we released.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and – okay but you can confirm maybe tomorrow morning after
you have read it to – once you are sure.
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay alright.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So the question is, is the report before you a
complete and accurate reflection of your statement or is your statement different in
some respects? And if you could just have a look at it overnight and tell us tomorrow
morning? Thank you.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thank you Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: We are at paragraph 16 of your statement Mr
McBride. Would you tell the Chair of the circumstances referred there by way of
background to what you have to say later?

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thanks Chair. So prior to my appointment in 2014
which was in March and unbeknown to me an investigation had cul minated in a
recommendation report that was made available to the prosecutor that was managing
the case.

And the case concerned rendition or the irregular or undocumented

repatriation of Zimbabweans to their country of origin. And this statement included
evidence in a docket and the opinion of the investigator. So unlike SAPS the practice

Page 72 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
when I arrived at IPID was that in addition to evidence in a docket IPID investigators
would make a recommendation report which is essence their opinion about the sum
total of the evidence after assessing it.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Right what were – what was the central

allegation in the so called rendition matter and in the progress report which you say
was issued before you arrived at IPID?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thank you Chair. The key elements is that the very
loaded term rendition was used and it was known and still is known as a rendition case
which basically means from media in relation to in particular the USA of suspects being
10

un-procedurally detained and not taken to trial and in this instance the allegation was
that General Dramat, Sibiya and other generals were involved in masterminding the
illegal repatriation of Zimbabweans back to their country of origin. Specifically if we
take the context of what it was called “to get them killed” on the other side by their own
authorities.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right did this progress report include any
recommendation in regard to Messrs Dramat and Sibiya?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes in the recommendation report there was in the 22
January 2014 report a recommendation that a number of general including Generals
Sibiya and Dramat be prosecuted.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right. What…
CHAIRPERSON: Let me just ask this before the next question from Mr Pretorius. I just
want to understand what part is a crime or supposed to be crime? Would the position
be that only the SAPS for example may repatriate undocumented foreigners or would
the position be that it is either – it should either be SAPS or certain officials of the
Department of Home Affairs and if it is done by somebody else then it is illegal or is the

Page 73 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
position that somebody must give an instruction that they must be repatriated and in
their absence of an instruction from a particular official then the repatriation is a criminal
offence?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thanks Chair. My understanding is that it has to
involve Department of Home Affairs and in this particular instance as from memory the
documentation which was used to process the individuals concerned as a falsified
document. And so the repatriation and the Home Affairs documentation attached to
that repatriation was falsified. In addition to that the people who were repatriated from
memory were people who had been identified by Zimbabwean authorities that having
10

been involved in crimes in their country including the killing of a colonel within the
Zimbabwean police. Now the allegations are that the Zimbabwean police as part of a
cooperation agreement I am not sure whether it is a Bilateral or it is a SADC one at this
stage entered the country to request assistance of SAPS to assist them locate where
these people are presumably with the intention of – of bringing them to justice in
Zimbabwe. So in the process people were arrested for context Chair this took place
over about two weeks at least and I am just relying on memory. So it was a long
process with lots of different people involved at different stages.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: And it involved Beit Bridge Border Post.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Okay thank you. I guess it must be that it is not everybody
who can just identify somebody as an undocumented foreigner and drive him out of the
border or get his or her friends to say let us drive them out it has got to be certain
people who are authorised?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

Page 74 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So we know thus far Mr McBride that prior to
your appointment as the Executive Director of IPID in 2014 a report already existed?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: An IPID report? Well that is controversial. Let
us just – let us just say a report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thanks Chair would you like me to …
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: No I would just want to summarise.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Okay.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And you can comment at the end?
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Okay.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: This report recommended that Messrs Dramat
and Sibiya be criminally charged, do you recall the offence or the alleged offence?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I cannot remember specifically …
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: You have got it in paragraph 16 and you can
refer to that. The last line.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Kidnapping and defeating ends of justice.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right. This report then would have been
prepared under the executive directorship of your predecessor?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct yes.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Who was that?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: The predecessor was at the initial stage it was Mr
Francois Beukman and after his resignation an acting executive director Ms Kuki Mbeki
was the acting executive director.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right. At the time what positions did Messrs
Dramat and Sibiya hold respectively?

Page 75 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

General Dramat was the national head of the

Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation and General Sibiya was the Provincial
Head.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And …
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: For Gauteng.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Dramat left office or was removed from office
in 2015, am I correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes he was forced out of office Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Who replaced him?
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: On an acting basis it was General Berning Mtlemeza.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright. And General Sibiya what happened to
him?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: General Sibiya was – was dismissed.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: By whom?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It was by well General Mtlemeza and the process that
unfolded from the disciplinary.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right. You were appointed Executive Director
then on the 3 March 2014 you say in paragraph 17, is that correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: What did you do on your appointment relevant
to your evidence?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I requested an update on all what I refer to as or was
referred to then as high profile cases. Cases involving senior policemen but also that
had found expression in the media and also a briefing on cases that were underway
and to get a status of where the cases are. And one of those cases was the so called

Page 76 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
the rendition case.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right did you receive that briefing?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes I received the briefing from on a number of
occasions in my first week from Mr Sesoko and Mr Ncuba and I also received a briefing
on the Cater Mano case from Mr Angus and the briefing and the funny thing about both
cases is the involvement of SAPS in both cases and in particular the rendition case
which is pertinent here was that most of this – statements were taken by let me restate
that. Firstly I became very concerned at the way in which the case reached IPID.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Before you go there can we just clear up one
10

detail or two details. Messrs Ncuba and Sesoko are going to feature in the evidence
and they will ultimately possibly also give evidence. Who were they – what positions
did they occupy?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Mr Sesoko was the acting at that stage National head
of investigations and Mr Ncuba was the acting provincial head of Limpopo province of
IPID.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Within IPID both of them?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes sir.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes. You drew certain conclusions initially
from these briefings well what you were told over the course of the ensuing months is

20

of relevance and we will deal with that in detail in d ue course. But your first observation
having been briefed is what you were about to tell the Chair.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: The first aspect it was very stark and of concern to me
and having read the IPID Act and the provisions in the constitution prior to my interview
process and appointment I became concerned by the fact that the docket had been
prepared by crime intelligence and brought to the acting head of IPID who then handed

Page 77 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
it to Mr Ncuba to indicate he must continue on this rendition case to work with crime
intelligence and that he must circumvent reporting to Mr Sesoko who was his senior.
And it indeed it was crime intelligence that the introduced Mr Ncuba to the prosecutor
who became the prosecutor and involved in this case and involved in disc iplinarians
later Advocate Mosing. For me the issue was and I had raised it then, why is crime
intelligence involved in your investigation? Are we not separate from SAPS now?
From my understanding we are separate and independent. And immediately upon
posing that specific question Mr Ncuba said to me, Boss it is the first time in my life I
was called Boss. Boss let me be open with you from the beginning. I was concerned
10

and scared about this case from the day it was given to me. And when he said it le d
me to ask further questions and he elaborated and he clearly was still shaken up then.
And I then enquired as to what is the status of the case? And he told me that there is
some outstanding statements and there is a – a report on a statement analysis and cell
phone records analysis on the suspects. And I enquired to him, what is the status of it?
And he indicated that he has communicated with the NPA to add the new evidence
which he has now obtained into the docket and that the NPA namely Advocate Mo sing
has referred him to the South Gauteng Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Chauke,
Advocate Chauke to pick up the document and then add the additional evidence in.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright. We perhaps going a little too fast

20

surprisingly into evidence which is later in your statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask this Mr Pretorius before you proceed? When you were
given the file or the report whatever you were given in regard to the rendition case
when you wanted to be updated on the high profile cases. You have said that you –
you have said that one of things that you picked up was the involvements – involvement
of SAPS. Now I – was that – did you pick that up from the documents or is that

Page 78 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
something that Mr Ncuba told you or is it both?

In other words from the file or

documents could you tell that SAPS had been involved or and or was it the investigator
who told you?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thank you Chair. The briefings that were given to me
in the first week were all verbal, oral briefings. At a later stage when the new evidence
was factored in I was given a report which I had to sign off on in terms of the
regulations which is about the 8 th or 9th April and that is when I saw a report.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Ja.
10

CHAIRPERSON: So in the verbal reports you were told about the involvement of
SAPS but when you saw the report there was also something to show that SAPS had
been involved?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Now you have stressed to the Chair the
statutory framework and the various judgments to which you will refer that emphasise
the importance of the independents of IPID.

Not only is it important but it is

indispensable to our law enforcement system. You have given that evidence. What
function would criminal intelligence then which is part of SAPS and part of the regime
20

over which you have oversight, what function would criminal intelligence then have in
preparing such a docket in conjunction with or for IPID?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Generally to my understanding CI would not prepare
documents. CI acts in support of detectives and DPCI in assisting them with their
investigations and providing intelligence in which they can take the investigations
further. And CI to my knowledge at present would not be involved with IPID. But more

Page 79 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
importantly Chair crime intelligence themselves it is unusual for them to be carrying
dockets and taking statements from witnesses and suspects.
CHAIRPERSON: It is generally not their function?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It is not and very often they do not even testify in court
in order to protect their identities so they can continue doing the work that they should.
So all of this together and the way in which Ncuba expressed his concern at how the
matter was handled initially made me to be on guard.
10

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: A second issue arising from what you have just
told the Chair may become important later when we talk of certainly the Workman’s
Report and your views on the Workman’s Report. At the time of your first briefings you
say they took a week or so?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Where you were given verbal briefings.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

You say that you were told that certain

information had to be added to or supplemented to an existing file/report/docket, what
was the position?
20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It was to be added to a docket and around about the 9
March the status of the case I reported to the then Minister, Minister Mthethwa that it is
in a process of being completed. There is these additional pieces of evidence that
need to be added. So not only did I get a briefing I reported to the Minister what the
status is and at some stage around about the same time I had requested a meeting
with the Minister to give him a report on the status of all the cases. It was on my own

Page 80 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
initiative and basically to – so that I know that I am on top of things and that I am
dealing with it and that issues are speedily resolved.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright before you go on. Just to revert to one
point which may become important.

The information was to be added to othe r

information already in the possession of the NPA, am I correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Does it not follow therefore from what you were
told that there would have been a report already in possession of the NPA because
otherwise it could not act? Am I correct, am I not correct?
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: There was not a reference to a specific report. At that
stage I was not even accustomed to the process of writing a recommendation report
which is the opinion of the investigator. From memory with similar matters it was a
docket that is submitted without a recommendation report as detectives in the police
do. So I was not aware of that specifically that there was a report. And what was being
added and to what it was added in my understanding was a docket.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right. A docket containing certain information?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes and evidence.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Because you know that in – I am sorry. You
know that in the Worksman’s Report which we will deal with in due course.

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes, yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

It was found that you did indeed have

knowledge of what has become termed as the first report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Well at some stage I would have knowledge of it. And
there is not any issue with having knowledge of it. A recommendation report is an
opinion of an investigator. But in the initial weeks I did not know that there existed a

Page 81 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
report or that these reports were done in the way in which they were done.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes we may return to that issue. Did you reach
any conclusion at least initially in relation to what existed in the case file at that stage?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes I had…
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: You deal with that in paragraph 19.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes Chair. I – yes from the report given by Mr Ncuba
to me that is the verbal report the briefing there was a clear understanding who the
suspects were and the roles they played. One of the questions I asked at that stage
was since this took place over at least two weeks who was involved and at what stage?
10

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: By this you mean the rendition as we have
called it?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair. Who was involved and at what
stage and what crime was committed at the various stages? And then I was given an
explanation and I then asked perhaps I was – I was being a bit clever I asked them,
what are the elements of the crime in each of these stages? And I – I then picked up
that there was – there was now a concern from my investigators that this level of
interrogation of what is been given to them was also of concern with them and after the
initial briefings it was then – which I said to the Minister, we are finalising the evidence
and all evidence will be reviewed on the basis of the questions that I asked relating to

20

who played a role where and who was associated with the various stages of this
rendition which to me was a new crime and it indicated a conspiracy from start to finish
and that is why I needed to get a break-down of who played a role where.
CHAIRPERSON: And what the elements were of the crime?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Exactly Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON:

Did you get an answer from Mr Khuba and whoever else were

Page 82 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
briefing you when you asked what the elements of this crime were that you are
recommending that these people be charged with?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: At that stage Chairperson it was – it was not clear cut.
It – there was an explanation briefly as to who said what and how people were
implicated. Later on the same discussion took place about a month – two months later
with the National Director of Public Prosecutions in a meeting between him, Mr Sesoko
and myself just discussing the case after we had handed the case over to him in April.
So it was just soon after that and kind of brain storming what really is this funny
creature which is called “rendition” for South African Law and what does it mean and so
10

on but to answer your question Chair I did not get a clear answer. Rather I got a
description of the sequence of events as alleged.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Thank you Mr McBride.

You say then in

summary you are appointed. You are told of an investigation conducted with the
assistance or at the behest of Crime Intelligence. We can clarify that relationship in
due course. You interrogate the facts and you reach a certain conclusion which to put it
at its highest is an issue of doubt around the validity of any conclusions that might have
been reached albeit on an initial basis?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes Chair. If I can put it this way already I was under
the firm belief that already the – the investigations independent and integrity has been
20

compromised.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: At the initial stages.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: What did you then direct having received these
briefings? You deal with that in paragraph 20 of your statement.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Thanks Chair. In essence I requested that all the

Page 83 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
evidence must be reviewed and that all evidence that must now be acquired be
processed because of the issue of the integrity. I – I was nervous of the involvement of
Crime Intelligence. Already at that stage Crime Intelligence did not have a – a good
public image if I can put it that way and then the usurping and the secrecy involved
immediately got like I say I got my guard up, ja.
CHAIRPERSON: Just to make sure I understand you correctly when you said at the
beginning of your evidence on this issue that you picked up or were briefed to the effect
that there had been involvement of SAPS. Was reference to SAPS confined to Crime
Intelligence or were there people from SAPS outside of Crime Intelligence as well who
10

were involved?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: In terms of the investigation Chair it was only Crime
Intelligence involved.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: In terms of the suspects I cannot remember at which
stage I realised that but the suspects were all from DPCI.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And a number of others who received – sorry to go
into the detail – who received messages were from other divisions of SAPS but.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

20

MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: They were implicated only because they received
SMS.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Success SMS.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm, but in terms of investigation it was Crime Intelligence that was
involved?

Page 84 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right. Did you then assess what needed to be
done after your briefings?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes that is correct [intervenes].
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And what did you decide needed to be done?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That an entire review of all evidence including that
which was obtained before IPID received it.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:
10

Did you direct further investigations be

conducted?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE:

Yes that is correct and I – I stated that in my

information note to the Minister on 9 March.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: You deal with that at paragraph 20 of your
affidavit.

Briefly could you detail what further investigations were in your view

necessary to be undertaken?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: It was the extent to which the identified suspects
could be implicated and that would require the factoring of the cellphone records
analysis but also to look at in terms of review I cannot remember specifically what I had
said then and how it evolved later into – to what it was but briefly it was to review
20

evidence in existence particularly because of the contamination and the fear expressed
and concerned by the chief investigator who was Mr Khuba.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: At the stage you received your briefings had
the relevant cellphone records being properly and comprehensively analysed?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: My understanding at that stage the cellphone records
had been obtained and before I arrived the cellphon e record analysis had been

Page 85 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
obtained and hence Khuba had requested the docket from Advocate Mosing to include
this additional evidence in the docket.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: What did the analysis of the cellphone records
in view show?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: As far as General Sibiya is concerned in contrast to
what at least three Crime Intelligence Officers had stated namely that he was on at
least three scene – three different scenes. The cellphone records analysis showed that
General Sibiya was not on any of the scenes and if I remember correctly Khuba told me
that he even 205’d the private phone of General Sibiya and both phone recording –
10

records analysis were consistent with each other but were in contradiction to the
evidence that was contained in the statement by Crime Intelligence Officers.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright. Your answer may not explain to people
who have no knowledge of the detail precisely what happened but you refer to three
persons who made claims about the whereabouts of General Sibiya on the crime scene
or at a particular time. What time was this? What occasion was this?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: It was during the – the tracking down and arrest of the
Zimbabweans who were wanted in Zimbabwe.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: At issue was whether General Sibiya knew of,
was involved in or was present at the “rendition operation” and its execution. Correct?

20

MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Hm.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So his whereabouts were important?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: His whereabouts were important, but I would prefer if
– if it is in order Chair that we break, break it down to, to arrest rather than the blanket
“rendition” definition.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Okay.

Page 86 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe – I am sorry Mr Pretorius. I was going to ask this question.
Maybe it belongs after you have – you are done but maybe we should deal with it now.
Just so that we understand, your understanding of what it is that they were alleged to
have actually done that was referred to being “rendition” what was it? Were they
alleged to have falsified some documents or instructed people to falsify documents and
then apprehended those people, took them in a car and tried to take them out of South
Africa? Just the actual acts as you understood them that was referred to as “rendition”
what was it?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: In terms of the – Chair in terms of the word “rendition”
10

it is only what I know in the American context.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And that in the South African context it would not be
allowed as described by media.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And reports of fiction about what “rendition” entails.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE:

My understanding is that even based on the

allegations.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
20

MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Made by Crime Intelligence.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE:

General Dramat’s association with the series of

events was that he was informed by a Crime Intelligence Officer who was at the border.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That Zimbabwe officials want to come and see him.

Page 87 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
They are looking for suspects.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: So that is General Dramat.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: The next link of General Dramat to the series of stuff
is that he allegedly congratulated officers for the arrest of the Zimbabweans.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: So it is two issues that link him to it.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
10

MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: He also was amongst those who received automated
bulk SMS’ indicating successes.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: So if I remember correctly.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is the sum total.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Of General Dramat’s.
CHAIRPERSON: Alleged involvement?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Involvement in this whole saga.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: General Sibiya’s involvement was a – was at a scene
where suspects were arrested and assaulted on three different scenes.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: So after I was informed that General Sibiya could not
be placed on any of the scenes in my own mind then it was – then it means that the

Page 88 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
three witnesses from Crime Intelligence placing General Sibiya on three different
scenes cannot possibly reasonably be true and it just made me even more suspicious.
So, ja so Chair that is.
CHAIRPERSON: That.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: The sum total of their involvement.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: In the whole saga.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. No, now - now I understand.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Just one fact which emerges from your answer
10

now the key witnesses in relation to the involvement of General Sibiya were from Crime
Intelligence?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And the investigation was being conducted at
least in part by Crime Intelligence?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON:

And you said that on your understanding generally doing

investigations and carrying dockets is not the normal function of Crime Intelligence?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct. My understanding.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
20

MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And I still have the understanding. It is not their
function.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: We may have to deal with some detail in due
course but I understand and this is just to place Mr Sesoko and Mr Khuba on the scene.
Did you give Mr Sesoko any task? Remember the reports had been giv en to – careless

Page 89 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
use of word on my part. I am sorry. The briefings had been given to you by Mr Khuba.
Correct.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: I am sorry. Did he have a rank? Perhaps I
should give him due recognition. Was it Mr Khuba or did he have a rank at the time?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: He was the Acting Provincial Head.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Ja.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Well let me not bother then. Mr Khuba gave
10

the briefings to you?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes and one of the issues there Chair if you would
allow me was that he had been told by Acting Executive Director Kuki Mbeki not to
involve Sesoko in – in the investigation.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Sesoko in your view should he have been
involved?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Absolutely sir. He was the head – the National Head
of Investigations and he was the direct supervisor to Mr Khuba.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right. Did you then task Mr Sesoko with any
mandate?

20

MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes. In – both Mr Khuba and Mr Sesoko I directed
that Mr Khuba must report to Mr Sesoko all developments in the case and that
Mr Sesoko must oversee the process of review.
CHAIRPERSON: Before Mr Pretorius asks the next question just to make sure one
follows the sequence. So you arrive at IPID after your appointment?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes sir.

Page 90 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: You call for a briefing all high profile cases?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes sir.
CHAIRPERSON: One of them is one referred to as the “rendition case”?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Which, which – in which the suspects were General Dramat and
General Sibiya. You get given the briefing. In terms of that briefing you are made to
understand that there is already a docket that has been sent to the NPA. You get that
briefing and in due course you brief the Minister and you get – you get concerned when
you get the briefing about certain features of this matter and at a certain sta ge you then
10

ask Mr Sesoko to effectively be the one to whom Mr Khuba would report about this
matter. At the time – at that time you have been told by Mr Khuba that there was
further evidence or further documents that he wanted to be added to the docket th at
was at the NPA. Is that correct so far?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now as I understand the Act and I have not read the whole of it
and from what you have said I saw that there is a provision that the Executive D irector
must refer matters that require criminal prosecution to the NPA or relevant authorities
for prosecution. So now at that stage when you were briefed did you get to know
whether what had happened namely the sending of the docket to the NPA that

20

represented the referral of the matter for prosecution and whether did you also get to
know whether it had been referred by the Acting Director who was before you?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Thank you Chair. What had happened between the
period of Mr Beekman’s resignation and the appointment of the Acting Executive
Director at the stage in around November 2013 when I had been nominated for the post
subject to approval by Parliament according to what I – I was told was that Ms Mbeki

Page 91 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
had actually stopped coming to work. In fact I never ever met Ms Mbeki and Mr Khuba
at some stage I do not know whether it was initially indicated to me that there was
pressure placed on him by Advocate Mosing to bring the docket in December already
and he had indicated to Advocate Mosing that the procedure is that the Executive
Director must sign and that Advocate Mosing was still insistent that he gets the docket
to him as soon as possible. Later on I found out that during December, November or
December 2013 prior to the docket and the recommendation report reaching
Advocate Mosing there was other pressure place on Mr Khuba by General Ntlemeza
who was Deputy Provincial Commissioner in Limpopo where Mr Khuba resided and the
10

two of them knew each other from police work and investigations within the Province of
Limpopo and I was not made aware of it in the first engagements with Khuba. At some
stage later on when he – he explained sequence of events in further detail. He
indicated that General Ntlemeza and he can answer for himself when he – if and when
he testifies - had said to him that he is holding up his progress by taking long with the
report. So for Khuba he was under pressure to get whatever he had in the docket and
whatever conclusions he had come to at that stage in the absence of additional
information that was outstanding and possibly and now we know exculpatory evidence
been included in the docket and been factored in and considered and that is how it
came to be that the two factors - the unavailability of Ms Mbeki and the pressure placed

20

on him - to deliver the docket with the recommendation report to Advocate Mosing.
CHAIRPERSON: So am I correct that from what you say your understanding is that
that docket was sent to the NPA. Advocate Mosing is from the NPA?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Was sent to the NPA without it being signed or sent by the Acting
Executive Director?

Page 92 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct sir and in addition it was also not
signed by the National Head of Investigations – the Acting Head of Investigations.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sesoko?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but your understanding is that he would have had to sign it
normally before it was sent off?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is – that is correct sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Because in this instance Khuba is the investigator.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: He has to take it to his supervisor.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And his supervisor was Mr Sesoko.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: So it would have to be cleared corrected.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Before it is passed over to the Executive Director to
sign off on it.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.

20

MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE:

To get it to the NPA.

purposefully omitted.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: By the instructions.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Of Ms Mbeki.

Page 93 of 148

So that process was

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Hm. So Mr Sesoko was – was overlooked in terms of having to play
his role in that docket or reports and then from what you heard the Acting Executive
Director had played a role and said Mr Sesoko should not be involved?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And consequently it was not in terms of procedures.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And accepted practices of IPID.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm, but in terms of the Acting Executive Director having signed. I
10

assume there would have been a place for her to sign. You do know that she had not
signed anywhere or you are not sure?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: At the stage when I was briefed I was – I was not
aware but I subsequently became aware that she did not sign.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And only Mr Khuba signed.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay. Thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Thank you.

The Chair referred to the

provisions of the Act and if I may just place on record again Section 7(4) of the IPID Act
which reads:
20

“The Executive Director must refer criminal offences revealed
as a result of an investigation to the National Prosecuting
Authority for criminal prosecution and notify the Minister of such
referral.”
It seems that task in terms of the Act is visited on the Executive Director?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes that is correct.

Page 94 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Although we do know that matters may be
transferred through other channels and we will try and find that as well. You yourself
have told us about that?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Right.

The further investigations and the

review did they lead you to a conclusion different to the one that had been referred to
the NPA previously?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Chair at the time when the finalised recommendation
report with a completed docket and I say completed docket advisedly because even as
10

recent as 2016 whilst we were still out on suspension and that whole, entire docket had
been given to another investigator officials of NPA had requested additional information.
So even in terms of what we believed was a completed docket and quite conclusive
there was still additional information which is the normal process in terms of where
there is a case and some elements missing, but at the time when we – when the report
was given to me to sign off on as per the – the recommendations made by Mr Khuba
and Mr Sesoko they – there was a conclusion that one of the DPCI members who had
not provided any version but there was evidence to indicate he was involved in the
irregular documentation for repatriation was recommended to be prosecuted and to be
disciplined. Other generals which included the present Head of DPCI and I do not

20

remember – I remember a General Tauke. I remember a few other generals names
mentioned.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Sibiya?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE:

General Sibiya.

General Sibiya was – I think the

wording that was used at that time of the final report was the evidence that he was on
the scene or involved could not sustain a prosecutio n.

Page 95 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright and in respect of General Dramat what
was the outcome of the further investigations?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: In terms of the analysis as I recall it was to the effect
that whether General Dramat received a phone call from the Crime Intelligence Office
at Beit Bridge we do not know what the conversation was about. There was an
instance of a meeting which I forgot to mention earlier of General Dramat and the
Zimbabweans Police Officers. If the meeting did take plac e there are no minutes kept.
We do not know what was discussed and on the SMS’ received by General Dramat
there was no response to them in fact one of the success reports did not even go to
10

General Dramat. It allegedly went to his personal assistant. There is no evidence and
even if my understanding was even if all that was alleged mainly by Crime Intelligence
was correct it would not constitute the elements of a crime, so that was the answer to
my initial question when we received the final report.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right, because in some and in summary you
say that as far as General Dramat is concerned the evidence was, as I understand what
you’re telling the Chair now, was simply that he was invited to discuss the matter and
after the event congratulated certain police officers, that was the evidence.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

In fact just to clarify Chair, after the arrest of,

presumably, the wanted suspects, so that would be a normal procedure within the DPCI
20

within police also, success reports it’s to do with morale, it’s to say work well done and
it’s in that context I understand that those congratulatory messages was to encourage
people to continue doing good work.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: In any event as I understand your position is
that after the briefings, after directing further investigations you concluded that the
elements of the crimes with which or in respect of which there was an initial proposal

Page 96 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
General Dramat and Sabir be charged could not be countenanced.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It could not be sustained, there was no exculpatory
evidence, actually, Chair it would be wrong to exclude or not to factor in the exculpatory
evidence.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: What happened then on the 18 th of March 2014
in respect of these matters?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: If my memory serves me correctly we submitted – I’d
like to request to just give a small context. During that period...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: Where you need to, you may refresh your memory by looking at the
10

statement.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thank you Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: We’re at paragraph 21.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Okay, we had decided that in the light of the report
that Khuba had given us about his surprise as to one day coming out of church, he then
read about his investigation in the Sunday Times, it was my intention, and it was agreed
between the three of us that if the leaks occur they’re not going to take place from IPID
and so the docket with all the evidence that had been factored in them together with the
final recommendation report compiled by Khuba and endorsed by Mr Sesoko and
signed off by me went directly to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and that’s

20

where it stayed.
CHAIRPERSON: So in terms of this, maybe second report, if we can call it that, that
you signed, so Mr Khuba had, had a role in terms of investigating or looking further into
some of the issues that you had raised and he had then prepared a report and that
report had been looked at by Mr Sesoko who was his supervisor and then at a certain
stage it came to you and effectively all three of you signed it, is that right or maybe only

Page 97 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
you and Mr Seseko?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: No Chair it was signed by Mr Khuba, signed by Mr
Seseko and then it came to me and then I signed off on it and to be fair and open there
were a number of grammatical errors and it sometimes very irritating for my co -workers,
often I’m particular about their spelling and grammar and from the report that I received,
the one which, Chair, you refer to as a second report, grammatical changes were made
on it and for example a simple thing like he instead of she and minor issues.
CHAIRPERSON: Minor things.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Minor issues yes and – but it was all three of us,
10

Khuba made recommendations, Sesoko reviewed and assessed and it was brought to
me to sign off in terms of regulations.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but am I right to say in the end, on that report one could find the
three signatures?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes that’s correct sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, alright thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right so that report was dated the 18 th of
March 2014 according to your statement.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair, no it was...
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Or is that the date of issue does it differ from

20

the date of finalisation and signature?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes I think...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: Or was it one of the dates where corrections were to be made?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It’s not this one Chair, this is the date, the 18 th of
March, I think this is the date on – I have to remember.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

Page 98 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

At some stage after this whole process it was

submitted to NDPP.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Perhaps go to page 227.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Okay, yes I have it so it was submitted by Mr Sesoko
to me on the 18 th of March it was then signed by me on the 9 th and I think it was on the
13th, now that...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: Is that 9 th April, it can’t be 9 th March obviously?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: No it’s 9 th of April, sorry Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes okay.
10

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Page 264, does that help you?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes that’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: It seems that you signed it on a different date?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: What date was that?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It’s reflecting here the 9 th of April and that would be
the normal course of events in terms of dealing with the inbox and outbox, so some
stuff stays for a week or so.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So it would have been issued then after your
signature, am I correct?

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So the 18 th of March 2014 is incorrect and we
should replace that with sometime after 9 April 2014?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

That’s correct, it reached NDPP and there’s

documentation to confirm it in April.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you, in any event apart from that, is it

Page 99 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
correct that a report under your signature was issued to the NDPP firstly?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And secondly as you’ve indicated would be the
case, that report effectively exonerated Messrs. Dramat and Sibiya?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair if I can just say it differently.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It did not recommend prosecution against them as
there was no evidence it did not – I’m just a bit concerned about saying that it
exonerated them.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it reached a conclusion different from the one that had been
reached by the first report or, if we can put it that way
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes the first one said prosecute.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And your one did not recommend prosecution.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: And just to follow-up, fast-forward, you know, four
years later indeed the charges have been withdrawn fro m both Dramat and Sibiya

20

precisely because prosecution was unsustainable. So the so-called second report was
correct and the NPA found that – and hence we stand by that report because there is
some collateral in terms of, even though opinion of the investigators.
CHAIRPERSON: Although you say that you – although you were concerned about
saying the second report exonerated them would it be correct to say the basis for your
conclusion not to recommend criminal prosecution was that you could not find any

Page 100 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
evidence that they had committed any crime?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct Chair, that’s exactly it there just wasn’t
evidence connecting them to any particular crime.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja okay.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright two issues, firstly your use of the words,
effectively exonerated perhaps then should be rephrased I don’t want to get into a
semantic argument, you’ve put your position clearly we will just amend that and
put...(intervention).
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I’d like to comment on it Chair.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Hence, effectively exonerated the use of the word
“effectively”.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright.
CHAIRPERSON: You are comfortable if one includes effectively rather than if one
simply says exonerated them, if one says it effectively exonerated them, you are
comfortable with that?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

20

Well for the sake of completeness and

accuracy we could go to page 264 and under the heading “recommendation” in
paragraph 8 of the report signed by you on the 9 th of April 2014 you could perhaps read
the recommendation onto the record.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thank you Chair,
“Based on the available evidence the Independent Police Investigative
Directorate recommends that no charges should be brought against

Page 101 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
Lieutenant General Dramat and Major General Sibiya. The investigation
established that there is no prima facie case against them. However with
regard to Lieutenant Colonel Malulega? there is a prima facie case to sustain
charges of kidnapping and defeating the ends of justice”.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that the first – that Mr Khuba had signed the first report
docket, he had?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, alright.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:
10

Then paragraph 22 you deal with the

involvement of the then Minister of Police Minister Nhleko in the matters related to the
issuing of what you call the final IPID report in paragraph 22, please explain what
happened there?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: At some stage after the appointment of Minister
Nhleko a reference group was established by him and my understanding is that
Ministers have in their powers the authority to establish groups that provide advice or
evidence and this group was involved in finding out a number of cases and they came
to speak to, amongst other people, IPID and questioned us on a number of cases and
in the reference group was Advocate Mathenjwa who – and Advocate Kruger who
visited us at IPID and they asked us – Advocate Kruger dealt with other cases and

20

Advocate Mathenjwa dealt – asked questions about the so-called rendition saga. Mr
Khuba was present to brief them and he briefed them. My impression was, A dvocate
Mathenjwa was not too happy with the explanation, he then – soon after
that...(intervention)
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Sorry with what explanation?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Of what had taken place with the case and that we

Page 102 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
had recommended no prosecution, so this would be August 2014.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: And a few days later or no it could even have been a
month later...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry may I just interrupt you Mr McBride, I may have missed
something, there was a team of people who came to ask questions about certain
matters, Mathenjwa was one of them, Kruger was another one. They are coming to ask
about questions, did you connect with the Minister of Police at that time, or not re ally?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair, absolutely because it was the Minister that
10

established a reference group and when they...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: Oh they were in the reference group?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh okay now I understand, okay thank you.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: And at some stage after their visit, and they may have
visited us once or twice, I think the initial time Mr Khuba was not around because he
was based in Limpopo but I think I arranged for him to brief them because he was the
investigating – on a number of cases, including (indistinct) they were interested in and
including the case of General Phiyega with respect to General Lamoer in Western Cape
which is cases that we were involved in investigating, all these cases preceded my

20

arrival at IPID. In any event a few weeks or months later Mr Khuba reported to Mr
Sesoko that Advocate Mathenjwa requested the entire docket or a copy of the entire
docket of the rendition saga and according to Mr Sesoko, Mr Khuba told Advocate
Mathenjwa that he must ask the Executive Director for it. Soon after that – soon after
me becoming aware of the request by Advocate Mathenjwa I received a letter from the
Minister and the Minister indicated he wants this docket all exhibits, co lour photos

Page 103 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
relating to the docket and he had – in his letter to me he had put the wrong CAS
number. So I then discussed it with Mr Khuba and Sesoko and I said I don’t feel like
giving this docket over, I feel this is not proper and their advice from – in particular Mr
Sesoko was that Chief you know what this Minister is new maybe he doesn’t know all
the issues for the sake of good relationship – because until then it looked like the
relationship was okay, can you just please comply with this request and I thought – Mr
Sesoko always has, he always has a very calming effect and logical rational effect
whereas I like to take things up immediately and he would say, no wait, so he’s – by
that time I’d learned to listen to his, you know, his advice.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Was it like a good sounding board so to speak?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

Yes, yes if – and he’d always – he’d always

take...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: A very common sense approach...(intervention).
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Absolutely, absolutely and then I then complied with
the request to the Minister and in my last sentence of the letter – the info note to the
Minister, I indicated that, firstly he’s indicated the wrong CAS number but I know which
CAS number he means because the member of the reference group asked for it and I
left a cryptic message right at the end in the last line to say that I’m giving you the stuff
with the utmost sincerity and trust which is an unusual way to end a letter but I was
20

trying to indicate to him how sensitive this matter is without really offending him and I
think that was – and he gave me a time limit, I think two days to provide all of it and we
were to scurry around getting it and that was towards the end of November, the 26 th or
28th it went off to the Minister. Subsequently I found out that on the 6 th of December
General Dramat received a notice of intention to suspend from the Minister and we
became aware of it later on General Dramat was suspended and Minister

Page 104 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
spokesperson Minister Muso Shondi? made a statement that as a result of IPID’s
investigations and recommendations he is suspending General Dramat and I realised
there is something wrong because the recommendation report together with the copy of
the docket that we had sent to the NDPP and now we had sent to the Minister did not
recommend disciplinary steps or general prosecution of General Dramat and so during
that period myself and the spokesperson responded to it, I think the spokesperson Mr
Moses Dlamini then made a statement...(intervention).
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

IPID’s spokesperson or Ministerial

spokesperson?
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: No the IPID’s spokesperson.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

That we did not recommend – during the same

period...(intervention).
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Sorry just before you go on had Minister
Nhkleko gone public in relation to the reasons for the suspension of General Dramat?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct Chair, it was round about the 22 nd of
December, Dramat is suspended and they make a statement.
CHAIRPERSON:

And when you say he had gone public is that through his

spokesperson or apart from what the spokesperson said he also may have said
20

something publicly.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thanks Chair, no it was through the spokesperson’s
statement, if memory serves me correct it was in response to queries asked by the
media as to the reasons for the suspension.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And importantly what was the justification given
in the public statement?

Page 105 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That IPID had recommended disciplinary action that
action should be taken against General Dramat.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes, what you say was not correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

It was not correct because I had not given any

statement or any briefing to the NDPP or the Minister that indicated that action should
be taken against General Dramat.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Ultimately...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: Would it – I’m sorry Mr Pretorius, the documentation that you gave to
the Minister pursuant to his request, was it in the form of the file or docket that IPID
10

had?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes Chair it was a copy of the entire docket.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Which end of the recommendation report, the one
referred to as the second recommendation report, it was a full copy of that and it was
actually on Mr Sesoko’s advice that we kept a copy and so a copy of that copy we
submitted to the Minister.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh now is that because the original had gone to the NPA, I see you
said – you say you were to keep a copy of the copy that you sent to the Minister, where
was the original had it gone to the NPA?

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

It had gone to the National Director of Public

Prosecutions yes sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes so as far as the NPA is concerned would the position be that
when they received the report that you signed their file or docket would have both, what
we referred to as the first report as well as the second report or was the first report
withdrawn when there was a second report?

Page 106 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair it was only the report that I had signed.
CHAIRPERSON: That they had?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That they had.
CHAIRPERSON: What had happened to the first report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I’m not sure of it but at some stage soon after that it
then, towards the end of December 2014 it then surfaces in the media.
CHAIRPERSON: The first report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes, so when – my understanding is when Khuba
retrieved the docket he did not retrieve that preliminary report with him, just the docket
10

because that’s what’s carrying the evidence and the original evidence. Sorry Chair, just
to say from my side, my knowledge the Minister did not receive any other report from
me except the one that does not recommend any disciplinary or criminal action against
General Dramat and Sibiya.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh so certainly from you he only received the one that did not
recommend any disciplinary or (indistinct) criminal prosecution?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: If he did have – if he did have the first one, he certainly didn’t get it
from you?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s absolutely correct Chair.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but you say – you say you are not sure or are you sure whether
Mr Khuba had retrieved, from the NPA what we have been referring to as the first report
and I don’t if that’s accurate, whether it was a report, you don’t know or you do know
that he had retrieved it?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair my understanding is that he didn’t.
CHAIRPERSON: He did not?

Page 107 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: He did not.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: And the reasons why I’m saying so at some stage Mr
Moshing? says in – I think in the interview at (indistinct) that he was g oing through Mr
Moletse’s cupboard who had now left NPA and then he found that report of that – that
was only signed by Mr Khuba. So I’m factoring that in because I subsequently became
aware of that factor but at the time an unsigned version of that first report surfaced
initially in the media then Mr Dlamini brought it to me and asked me, Chief I’ve just
made a statement that we did not submit this, now this is surfacing on the media. I
10

think at that stage I first became aware – this is now in December 2014 that there
existed a previous report as a recommendation report and then I said to Mr Dlamini,
well is it signed and he then says, no it’s not signed and then a few...(intervention).
CHAIRPERSON: Not even by Mr Khuba?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Not even by Mr Khuba, the initial one and then the
one with Mr Khuba’s signature is on then also surface so I enquired is this indeed Mr
Khuba’s signature because to me, perhaps it was forged, that’s me from my position,
having no knowledge of the existence of a first report and it’s then that Mr Khuba
admits, yes he signed this thing and then he gave me the full circumstances then, how
it was signed and indeed he confirmed that was his signature.

20

CHAIRPERSON: But would it be correct to say that whoever may have been aware of
both reports would have been aware that the one signed by Mr Khuba only could not be
– could not prevail over the second one firstly because the second one was also signed
by Mr Khuba and it was reaching a conclusion that was the opposite of the conclusion
of the first one but in addition the second one was signed by Mr Khuba’s supervisor as
well as the Executive Director now?

Page 108 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Ja and Mr Sesoko did, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair so …
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: They could not choose the one over the other.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: The – because the one was incomplete had …
CHAIRPERSON: No, no they could choose one and that is the second one. Because
the second one was signed by the Executive Director.
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair…
CHAIRPERSON: And for all intents and purposes there was no indication it was not
complete is it not?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair you absolutely correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja they could not choose the first one for some of the reasons that
you have articulated but anyone aware of the two if he had to choose it could only be
the second one.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes Chair if they were looking for the truth.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: They could only choose the second one.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: If they were looking for something else they would
ignore the one that I signed.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: You refer to the first or ‘provisional report’ in
inverted commas surfacing, was that a leak to your knowledge? Was it an authorised

Page 109 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
release of the first report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: To give context Chair it was – my suspicion was that
Advocate Mosing and I will tell you why I am saying – Advocate Mosing the reference
group and the Minister were not aware that it is at the NDPP the report that I signed.
And the Minister and the Reference Group received that so called first report through
their own means and not through any procedure and acted upon it and that is what
caused the confusion if I can use a funny analogy they pulled the trigger prematurely
without checking and did not look at the report that I provided and the docket to the
Minister.
10

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright so what I…
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Because they are not interested in it.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So what I understand from your answer is that
there was a level of intrigue somewhere you do not quite know where?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is my suspicion and that is my belief.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: And unfolding of events seems to strengthen that
suspicion.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes but I return to my question Mr Mc Bride.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes Sir.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: The provisional report.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Or the first report you say surfaced in the
press?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Was that an official release by an – by a

Page 110 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
person authorised to release it to the press or was it what we now know the term
‘leaked’?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair it was a leak.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright.
CHAIRPERSON: Did the Minister ever send you a letter acknowledging receipt of the
report you sent to him as far as you recall?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: He did not send a letter acknowledging Chair but
when they received together with the info note they usually sign in a register that they
have received it.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That proof of that delivery exists somewhere.
CHAIRPERSON: Exists okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So would the – would the report to go with your letter would it have
been delivered by hand as opposed to being posted or sent by courier or you do not
know?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Say it would have been delivered by hand.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and then signed {indistinct].
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: By one of the messengers of IPID.

20

CHAIRPERSON: And it would have been delivered to the office of the Minister?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say you do know that there exists somewhere a written
record that they received the report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: That is the Minister’s office?

Page 111 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have an idea around about when it would have been in 2014
when they received the report, the Minister’s office received the report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It would have been …
CHAIRPERSON: If there is a document that might help you feel free to have a look.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It is the 25 th or 24th November 2014.
CHAIRPERSON: Of November?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Ja and I was given two days to respond.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: So the reply would have reached the Minister within
two days.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes around 27 th or…
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: 27th or 28th.
CHAIRPERSON: November?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Latest ja.
CHAIRPERSON:

Ja.

And the – the announcement that General Dramat was

suspended, when did that become – when was that announced publicly in relation to
the Minister’s receipt of your report? Are you able to remember?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: The suspension took place around about the 22 nd
20

December a few days before Christmas.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh so that is about three weeks or so after the Minister’s office had
received your report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair. Just to give further context the
Notice of Intention to suspend.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

Page 112 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: General Dramat arrived on the – Dramat received on
6 December.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: So it is probably within the week of receiving.
CHAIRPERSON: Of receiving your – the report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But certainly from what you say when General Dramat received the
Notice of Intention to suspend him from the Minister your office had delivered your
report to the Minister’s office?
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Absolutely Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: And when the decision was taken to suspend General Dramat the
report had long been delivered to the office of the Minister?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and you do not know how and whether he may have any – had
any other reports?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I have no idea how he would have received it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes. But you say that the announcement or the spokesperson
of the Minister said that the reason – said that the suspension of General Dramat was
based on a report of IPID recommend – making a recommendation to that effect or

20

something like that?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Mr McBride. The contents of the
provisional or first report and of the final report signed by you will be dealt with in due
course in a little more detail. But to summarise thus far you came into office, you wer e

Page 113 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
told of an investigation labelled the rendition investigation. You directed certain further
investigations take place and that the original information be reviewed. And you signed
a report then in April 2014?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: That was submitted – and that report was
submitted to the NDPP?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe I should…
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: In December of the same year then General
10

Dramat was suspended it seems on the basis of the provisional report and not on the
basis of the final report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: One can only assume that.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right that is the implication at least of your
evidence.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And in public through his advisor perhaps the
Minister relied apparently on the first or provisional report to justify the suspension of
General Dramat?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Ultimately as a result of what you have

described what happened to General Dramat? Was the out – what was the outcome?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: If you will allow me Chair just before that there is
another…
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Occurrence that happens.

Page 114 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Around about the 8 January there was an 8 th January
rally …
CHAIRPERSON: That is now 2015?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: 2015 Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: In Cape Town. During that period I was doing what
we referred to in the public services cold face work. Working with investigators on the
ground, understanding what they go through in Cape Town. I was then contacted by
10

one of the people who I had initially met with the Reference Group who is – his
surname if Radebe that is how I know him and he then came to the office of IPID in
Cape Town and met with me, spoke to me and said that the Minister is here and can I
come and see the Minister?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Is that Minister Nhleko?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Minister Nhleko. And it was…
CHAIRPERSON: He had been – he had been where? The Minister is here can you
come and see him?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: He was at the stadium where the rally was being held.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh was this a political rally?

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes it was a political rally.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh okay alright.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: So I – I indicated to him that look I do not have
accreditation to go in. And he indicated to me that he will get someone to meet me.
Eventually I managed to get to the Minister and the Minister was in the meeting with me
and – and a person who was the advisor to the Minister Mandla Nozulu we knew him as

Page 115 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
Mandla Sithole was present in the meeting. Radebe left the meeting the he did not sit
in. And the Minister asked me about a number of cases including the case of General
Phiyega but the key issue was I then said to the Minister, Minister you have made a
mistake with General Dramat. And I think there is a way after to speaking to me I can
brief you what happened that there is a climb down – there can be a climb down for you
on this matter I think this is going to lead to problems. And the Minister said to me, ah
that is a good idea I will think about it. And I did not hear from him on this matter
instead he said by the 13 th or 14th can you finalise your report on the Phiyega Lamoure
issue and General Phiyega was the National Commissioner and the report had to be
10

prepared for the Minister to make a recommendation to the President about the matter
whether there was action or no action. And I indicated well it is a big ask but let us get
going. To continue the context I then met the Minister at his – at his ministerial home in
Pretoria around about the 15 th there was some delay.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: 15th of?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: January Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Before you get there going back to the meeting you had with the
Minister where the rally was.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying he asked you about a number of cases.

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you brief him on those cases?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay alright.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes. So at his home I again briefed him on a number
of cases. I think I had the Pandey case with me and the General Phiyega case with

Page 116 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
me.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: What was the Pandey case?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

The Pandey case involved I eluded to it earlier

involved corruption during the 2010 World Cup relating to accommodation for police
officers and including the role of General Ngobeni who was the Provincial
Commissioner and the role of General Phiyega when hindering the investigation.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright. When – yes I side tracked you I am
sorry. Please continue.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: So during that meeting the Minister did not touch on
10

General Dramat at all. Rather when he looked at the recommendations relating to
General Phiyega as it related to interference in the Booysen investigation into Pandey
and General Ngobeni. The Minister says well your comrades in KZN will not be happy
with this. And I did not understand what he meant but I knew this – it was a seminal
moment.
CHAIRPERSON:

Now you earlier on talked about Ngobeni being Provincial

Commissioner, is that Provincial Commissioner in KZN?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes okay. So in relation to KZN was it just the case of Commissioner
Ngobeni that you were briefing the Minister on or there was – or was there another KZN
20

matter?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It was General Ngobeni, a number of police officers
and I think in total about four cases/
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Relating to General Ngobeni and the interference by
General Phiyega and General Ngobeni in the investigation.

Page 117 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Okay. Now when the Minister said your comrades in KZN will
not be happy with this was that generally in relation to the KZN matters on which you
were briefing him or was it in relation to a specific – one specific matter maybe of
Ngobeni?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Specifically I got the impression it was the Ngobeni
Pandey matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: And – ja that is the impression I got.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay you may continue you were saying that he said your comrades
10

will not be happy and then what happened in terms of the discussion?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: So the discussion ended there and I did not pursue it
further. I knew it on another level now and I – I got out of the Ministerial house very
fast.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm, hm. Yes Mr Pretorius.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: I had asked you and you had intervened with
this evidence in relation to the ultimate fate of General Dramat arising out of these
incidents. I am fast forwarding just to explain to the Chair the context and outcome.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: My apologies Chair there is like so much different
angles and …

20

CHAIRPERSON: Yes no that is fine.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: A lot of detailed information so…
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: What happened to Dramat ultimately?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Dramat was suspended – ultimately he was forced out
of the service and he was forced into a – an early retirement package.

Page 118 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And who replaced him as head of the Hawks?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That was General Ntlemeza.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright.
CHAIRPERSON: Now when you met with the Minister at the rally in Cape Town you
had said something to him about the General Dramat matter namely that they would
have to – there was going to be a clamp down but my understanding and you must tell
me if my understanding of your evidence is correct is that on that occasion the two of
you did not discuss details about it, is that correct or did you? In other words did you
tell him why you were saying that, what your view was about his decision and so on?
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair I raised the issue with him and I said it, Minister
you are wrong, you need to climb down on this one and he did not even bother to listen
to me. He just said oh that is a good idea I will consider it. It was kind of dismissive
and …
CHAIRPERSON: So it was not a case of maybe we must find another time to discuss it
or – my impression earlier on was that it was like there would be another time to
discuss it that is not what was arranged?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: No his – Chair his focus was on General Phiyega.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Where is that?

20

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That case.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I would expect that it is also has something to do with
the Reference Group whatever report they gave because they were asking about
General Phiyega also.

Page 119 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: To us. Would General Phiyega on the particular case
we also did not recommend criminal prosecution because the issue was and I am sorry
to go off on a tangent but just there is context to it and it gives direction. So General –
the issue was did General Phiyega improperly warn General Lamoure that there was an
investigation against him and this is based on an intercept between the two generals
talking which was recorded by Crime Intelligence and in the recommendations that
came out of the matter which – our recommendations were and the DPP of the Western
Cape agreed with the recommendations that the discussion could not have been a
10

warning to General Lamoure because the discussion was taking place against the
background of a Parliamentary question being asked about whether there is an
investigation against General Lamoure. What we did say was that the extent of the
disclosure in the conversation appeared to be improper and therefore maybe there
should be some disciplinary consequence on that. So I am – so it is – in effect it is two
generals that the Minister has an interest in and both of them do not have
recommendations to prosecute.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: It may be termed an irony but as I understand
your evidence and the facts the law IPID is there is investigate the police?

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And what is happening with the Reference
Group is that the Minister has set up a different inquiry to investigate IPID, is that right?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: I was – I was still to – going to ask what was this Reference Group –
where was it coming from, was there a policy on which it was based, was there a statue

Page 120 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
on which it was bases, was it a statutory provision thing or was it just an informal group
of people that the Minister had put together on your understanding?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: My understanding then perhaps wrongly and – was
that the Minister had some prerogative to set up an advisory group which he terms
Reference Group to advise him on a number of pressing issues. And I have – we were
never informed by the Minister there is Reference Group and what its mandate is. On
one occasion Advocate Kruger was downstairs and the securities said someone from
the Minister’s office and they want to see you then – demanding to see you. So I said
well let them come up and Advocate Kruger came in with I think it was with Radabe and
10

she did not greet me when she came in. She was like very stern and I said, have a
seat and she like stared at me for a full minute. So I did not know her I later on found
out that she was – she had been a police officer at some stage but I got the sense that
she is a police officer by – because I had faced in my life intimidatory tactics like that
before. But I just – I just said let me be civil they said they coming from the Minister so
let us hear what – so would you like some tea? And so on and then they started asking
questions and I think that is when they raised the issue of rendition case and that is
when I then contacted Mr Sesoko to arrange another date for Mr Ncuba to come down
from Limpopo to brief them and then that is what we did ja. So that is how I became
aware of Reference Group. I did not see anything in the newspaper. Minister did not

20

tell me anything.
CHAIRPERSON: Well one of the witnesses who has given evidence here I think did
make reference to this Reference Group of the Minister of Police I think it was Mr or
Advocate Muofhe who was advisor to Minister Ramatlhodi.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: He says – he said he was invited to part of the Reference Group and

Page 121 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
so I think it is the same Reference Group.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: If I am not mistaken.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Advocate Muofhe I sort of was acquainted with him
from a previous occasion. I think he was in Thokoza when I knew him and he came on
his own to us and he wanted to check around about January or February 2015. And he
says to me he wanted to really know what is going on with rendition in a very collegial
way. And then we explained and it was not with the other team. Advocate Muofhe was
alone then I explained to him and Mr Ncuba was there and Ms Sesoko was there. And
10

he then said to me before parting he said now I know I have heard you now I know – I
understand I am satisfied. And he left and my sense was that he was sympathetic with
the circumstances we found ourselves in.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: At that moment ja.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm. Okay thank you. Yes Mr Pretorius maybe this is a – the time to
confirm with Mr McBride that if it is fine with him and everybody we could go up t o five
o’clock subject to a break in five minutes time, would that be fine with you?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes Chair that is in order.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Mr McBride would you look please at

paragraphs 23 and 24 and just tell the Chair of the contents thereof so that we can
wrap up at least this part of this part of your statement?
CHAIRPERSON: I think you might have to repeat I am not sure that he understood

Page 122 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
what you were asking?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes. If you would just look at your statement at
paragraphs 23 and 24.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Just in part summarise as in part introduces
new facts but it wraps up the evidence that you have just given.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Just would you put that on record please?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Okay. So we then repudiated the Minister’s statement
10

that he had suspended Dramat on the recommendations of IPID and a response was
given by Mr Dlamini who was a National Spokesperson. And the Minister later on
accused me of fraudulently altering an investigation report and subsequently I was
suspended on it looks like Chair it is the 25 March ja. I think that is the right date on –
at 24th.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, oh yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Just before you go on we will come to that
issue in due course because that is the subject matter of the Worksman’s Report which
is a matter of some controversy between yourself and Worksman’s and we will deal
with that in detail. But the first point is that the Minister justified the suspension of Mr

20

Dramat on the basis of the provisional first report and your response was that the
Minister was wrong because there was a proper second report signed by yourself.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Is that correct? And you say in paragraph 23
that the provisional report prepared by Mr Ncuba was indeed incomplete because it did
not consider all the evidence in its totality in particular exculpatory evidence?

Page 123 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Absolutely.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And then you say in the last sentence of
paragraph 23 that the first report was signed only by Mr Ncuba and in terms of IPID
regulations indeed we now know the Act and standing operational procedures all final
reports must be countersigned by the investigator, supervisor and you say in the
statement the approving authority prior to referring the case file to the NPA, is that
correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Chair that is correct I would like to also add there are
occasions where IPID has recommended a particular course of action as far as
10

prosecution is concerned and the NPA has not heeded tha t and including to prosecute
or to not prosecute. The NPA does not always agree with what we say. They have the
final say in terms of deciding to prosecute or not.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: The purpose of me stating this and emphasising it is
whatever is said in any report the NPA takes the final decision based on the evidence in
the docket.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right and the approving authority referred to in
the last line of paragraph 23 is yourself? Is that correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct sir. That is correct.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: You say in paragraph 24 as you have said now
you publically contradicted the statement by the Minister and clarified that Dramat and
Sibiya had been exonerated. You use the word exonerated there. I presume you mean
affectively exonerated by the IPID investigation and then the Minister accused you of
fraudulently altering the IPID report?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Thanks Chair. That is correct yes.

Page 124 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: You deal with that in that sequence.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Ja.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And then you were suspended?
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry – I am sorry. I guess that you – you had no choice but to
tell the public what the position was because now the Minister through his
spokesperson had told the nation that his decisions to suspend General Dramat was
based on a recommendation of your organisation and as head of the organisation if that
was not correct you had – you had an obligation to put the record straight?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Hm.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Or not?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: No, absolutely Chair. We had to. We were also stung
and dumbfounded by the allegations against us.
CHAIRPERSON: Hm.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: And what became clear as the Minister not acting in
good faith and the Minister on a path that has been decided and later on – I am sorry
Chair. Just to go into – later on I become aware of that the conversation of the previous
year of Mr Khuba and General Ntlemeza in Limpopo. I also become aware that at the
time of 2014 if – December the same day that – I might be a day or two out. The same
day General Dramat receives his notice of intention to suspend General Ntlemeza

20

meets with Khuba again or phones him and says:
“Watch there is going to be a hit on Dramat. Watch the media.”
And that is by coincide for me is the same day. So what happened in 2013 when
Minister Nhleko was not there Ntlemeza is already pushing Khuba to speed up his
report. Reportedly so is Advocate Mosing and then when everything comes to maturity
and fruition General Ntlemeza then tells Khuba watch the media there is going to be a

Page 125 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
hit on Dramat. It seems a path was chosen and people are on it and as much as I tried
to look at another reasonable possibility of why this is happening to us I could not come
up with a reasonable understanding of the Minister’s decisions and the path that we
were now on and my – any belief that the Minister might be mistaken or might be wrong
or has a misunderstanding of the law was now completely wiped away and that is why I
then realised I had to speak up and then also approach the courts. Anything less than
that would be an attack on the independence and integrity of myself and of IPID and of
the investigators who work with me and therefore we had to speak up.
CHAIRPERSON: Am I right that in your earlier evidence you also said that you
10

understood from Mr Khuba - and I guess he will confirm if he gets called – you
understood from him that when Mr Ntlemeza was putting pressure on him to send the
docket to report to the NPA he said that report that was to be sent to the NPA was what
was holding his progress back or something like that?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that - that is what you said?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That was in November/December 2013.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE:

That is before even the first report now reaches

Mosing.
20

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you were being told this after your appointment as?
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: Yes that is correct sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Chair there will be direct evidence of that

Page 126 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
conversation.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Is this a convenient time for?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: A 10 minute adjournment?
CHAIRPERSON: I think so. It is four minutes past. We will take a 10 minutes break,
but we will return at quarter past.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We adjourn.
10

REGISTRAR: All rise.
INQUIRY ADJOURNS
INQUIRY RESUMES
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Pretorius.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair. You refer to certain public
statements in paragraphs 23 and 24 Mr McBride, I presume that you will be able to
assist us to find those statements?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes Chair I will endeavour to find them, I will have to
contact the IPID spokesperson from the Department, Mr Dlameni.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you and just to maybe wrap up on something we dealt with

20

earlier, you told us that in relation to the office of the Minister there does exist
somewhere something in writing that is proof that they received your re port and when
they received it. In regard to the NPA is there a similar proof available in terms of when
they would have received your report?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: My understanding Chair is that there is, and if I
remember correctly in our submission of papers and urgent application at the High

Page 127 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
Court and Constitutional we would have annexed all of those issues.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, okay, thank you. In the end it might not be an issue but it
might just be important to know who received it when in relation to events that may
have happened after.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

Sorry Chair the only issue for some of the

documentation, l might not have access to it now because it’s with IPID.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I think to the extent that you might know that certain
documents within IPID may exist that might assist the Commission or might assist you
to assist the Commission speak to the Legal team of the Commission, and the
10

investigators, I’m sure that can be sorted out, thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair. Mr McBride just to refer to
certain to statements made under oath by Mr Khuba the document at page 1225 of
Bundle CYC what is that document?
CHAIRPERSON: Did you say 1225?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes Chair.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Thanks Chair, this document is a supporting affidavit
of Mr Khuba that was made in according to the stamp on the 26 th of June 2015 and it’s
in relation to the matter in the High Court challenging the unilateral suspension and
disciplinary of Minister Nhleko.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Yes in terms of the date you referred to the stamp that must be the
date when it was filed in the High Court I would imagine but at page 1247 which is the
last page of the affidavit there’s another date there isn’t it, in terms o f when it was
deposed to? 19 th June is the date that appears there, 2015.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct Chair, I would imagine it’s when the
entire bundle was ...

Page 128 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: It’s perhaps appropriate to deal with this
affidavit at this stage, although it is possible that Mr Khuba will give evidence, the full
story from his point of view is set out here and I’m going to refer you to certain
paragraphs if I may to see what you say about those paragraphs. I unde rstand that this
is Mr Khuba’s affidavit in the matter where you challenged your suspension and it’s the
affidavit which finally came to rest in the halls of the Constitutional Court.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: You go to page 1226.
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I have it Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: I presume it is correct as appears from this
affidavit and from your evidence to date that Mr Khuba was in IPID an official in IPID
long before you came onto the scene at IPID, correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Indeed, that’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: He says in paragraph 5 on page 1226:
“I was first assigned to investigate the involvement of the SAPS, South
African Police Service, including members of the DPCI in the illegal rendition
of Zimbabwean Nationals towards the end of 2011, although I was only given
the green light to investigate in October 2012.”

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct I see it.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: In paragraph – he may explain the delay of a
year in that regard when he comes to give evidence. Paragraph 6 he says:
“The circumstances in which the case was initially investigated and assigned
to me were very unusual.”
He then refers to the report in the Sunday Times alleging what was referred to then as

Page 129 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
an illegal rendition which appeared in during or about October 2011, which resulted in
questions in Parliament. Do you see that?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes I see.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

And it appears from paragraph 6.2 that your

predecessor, Mr Beekman, instructed Sesoko, the then Acting Chief Director of
Investigations at IPID to initiate an investigation, correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct sir.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: It then appears that Sesoko appointed Khuba
to head the investigation, but it seems that shortly after that appointment both Sesoko
10

and Khuba were instructed to hold off the investigation apparently on the instruction of
the then Minister of Police, Mr Nathi Mthethwa, do you see that?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I see this.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: It was only about a year later during October
2012 that a Colonel Makangwe from SAPS Crime Intelligence Gathering Division came
to Sesoka’s office at IPID and at that stage it appears that in the intervening period
Crime Intelligence, or the intervening year to which we’ve just referred, Crime
Intelligence were indeed investigating the matter, is that your understanding of what
happened?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct yes.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Makangwe handed over the docket that

Criminal Investigation Gathering – or sorry – Crime Intelligence Gathering Division had
opened into the renditions matter and advised, according to Khuba in any event,
advised Sesoko that an investigation had already been conducted by Crime Intelligence
Gathering – sorry Chair – and that the matter was not being handed over to IPID on the
instructions of the Minister of Police Mr Nathi Mthethwa, is that your understanding of

Page 130 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
what occurred?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Khuba continues to say that shortly after I
began my investigations I briefed Mbeki on the case and informed her that I would
consult with Seseko in the course of the investigation. Now Mbeki was as you’ve told
the Chair your immediate predecessor Executive Director IPID, correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct sir.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: He says that is Khuba says that it was common
practice to consult with your immediate superior, is that your understanding of the
10

practice within IPID?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes, that’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: You’ve said so. Khuba continues to say as the
National Head of Investigations at IPID Sesoko was ordinarily consulted and briefed on
all national investigations. Khuba continues to say in paragraph 6.6 on page 1228, to
my surprise Mbeki categorically instructed me not to work with or discuss the
investigation with Sesoko. Mbeki instructed me instead to collaborate with Makangwe
from CIG, that’s Crime Intelligence Gathering, in the conduct of the investigation and to
keep this collaboration secret. This was the first and the only time that I’d received
such instructions about an investigation.

20

Now to the extent that the facts in paragraph 6.6 may be found to be correct
after all the evidence is heard by the Chair is that circumstance or are those
circumstances unusual or questionable?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: To my knowledge and my experience in IPID we’ve
never had such a situation, and from what Mr Khuba says they haven’t had such a
situation prior to this so it’s clearly unusual.

Page 131 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Apart from it being unusual Mr McBride may I
ask you would it be proper or lawful for the IPID director, and I know I’m asking for your
opinion but from your personal knowledge and experience for the Acting Director
Executive Director of IPID to instruct an investigator not to report to his superior but
rather to collaborate in secret with someone from another branch of the South African
Police Service, particularly where the witnesses were from Crime Intelligence
themselves?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It’s completely irregular and sinister.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: In paragraph 6.7 Khuba continues, he says:
10

“Mbeki’s instruction was an unusual and problematic one because members
of the CIG were themselves involved in the arrest of these Zimbabwean
Nationals that were subsequently rendered to Zimbabwe. It also seemed to
be a problematic instruction given the widely known history of animosity
between Lt Col General Ndludli and the previous Divisional Commander of
the CIG, and Major General Shadrack Sibiya, then the Provincial Head of
DPCI for Gauteng Province.”
That’s a topic for another time. In any event he concludes in paragraph 6.8:
“I was instructed by Mbeki to report directly to her in the matter and the keep
her abreast of the progress in the investigation through regular reports. I

20

sent weekly reports on the investigation to Mbeki and a lso periodically sent
her copies of the working draft of the investigation report.”
He then says, and this is closer to the time where you became involved Mr McBride in
paragraph 7:
“On perusing the file of the CIG’s investigation of the rendition I became
concerned that the investigation that CIG had conducted was not reliable or

Page 132 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
adequate.”
And then he sets out various reasons for that to which he can testify if and when he
comes to give evidence.
He says in paragraph 7.3, in relation to the CIG investigation:
“It also seemed suspicious to me that certain of the Zimbabwean Nationals
identified Sibiya by name in their affidavits obtained by CIG although it was
unlikely that they would know his identity.”
And then he notes in paragraph 7.4 that in his interview with Werksmans Advocate
Mosingh expressed similar concerns about the credibility of the CIG officers’ evidence.
10

Then he says in paragraph 8, that by way of background because you now come on the
scene:
“On 4 March 2014 at the very first meeting that I had with the McBride [he
says] I conveyed my concerns about the manner in which the rendition
matter was brought to IPID and assigned to me for investigation. I told
McBride that I felt uncomfortable and suspicious of the involvement of CIG in
the investigation and the instruction that I was not to discuss the
investigation with Sesoko but to report directly to Mbeki.”
What do you say about that statement in paragraph 8, is it correct? Do you have any
comment?

20

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It’s a reflection of the discussions we had during the
first occasion of being briefed.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Paragraph 10 on page 1231 of Khuba’s

affidavit reads as follows:
“I also worked under the guidance of Advocate Mosingh and Moletse of the
NPA the Special Projects Division in the office of the NDPP who were

Page 133 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
involved in CIG’s investigation before IPID became involved. Mosingh told
me that before the matter was referred to IPID Colonel Makangwe had
approached the NPA to prosecute General Sibiya on the strength of the
CIG’s investigation but the NPA had declined to do so.”
What is your knowledge of the allegations in that paragraph?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

I don’t remember that particular aspect being

discussed with me initially, as I said some of the informa tion I became aware of
subsequently in greater detail.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right then he refers in paragraph 11 and
10

following to the report of January 2015, what you’ve referred to as the first or the
provisional report. In paragraph 13 he says, well in paragraph 12 he says – just bear
with me a moment Chair please – he says on 20 – if I can go back one paragraph to
paragraph 11:
“On 22 January 2014 says Khuba I submitted to Advocate Mosingh of the
NPA what I will for the sake of convenience refer to as the January 2014
report of the IPID investigation.”
He says in paragraph 12:
“I was placed under considerable pressure by Mosingh to submit a signed
version of the January 2014 report, with recommendations so that he could

20

hand over the matter to the DPP.”
That would be the Provincial Director of Prosecutions, correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Towards the end of the 2013 Mosingh started
insisting that I finalise my investigations and give him the repor t. My sense was that he
was under a lot of pressure to wrap up the case. He then says in paragraph 13:

Page 134 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
“While I did as I was instructed I was not satisfied that the January 2014
report was in fact a final report because my investigations were not
complete. After I submitted the January 2014 report I continued with the
investigation, I always intended to supplement the docket with the
outstanding evidence and to send an updated report when my investigation
was properly completed.”
Are you able to confirm the facts in that paragraph 13 from your own knowledge?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: From my own knowledge no, but from what I was told
yes.
10

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right but you do know, as I understand it, that
there was dissatisfaction that the 2014 report was incomplete, that was your own view?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And that certainly from your part you directed
that the docket be supplemented with outstanding evidence, is that correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct and to be subjected to review of all this,
of all existing statements in any event for evidentiary value.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: It’s perhaps appropriate at this time to make a
point that you made to the investigators, there’s a distinction as I understand it between
the report that IPID would produce and the evidence contained in any file or ultimately

20

in any docket.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes, that’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: It’s common cause that the final report, or
second report differed in content from the first or provisional report?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Was the evidence contained in the docket ever

Page 135 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
altered?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: No it was not except that additional information was
supplemented and added to it.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right.
CHAIRPERSON: The additional information was contained in separate documents, it
was not a question of amending any sentences in the report that had been – in the first
report was it? In other words if there was a docket that was sent to the NPA which
contained the first report if there was a docket or whatever it was that contained the
information that was sent what was done was just to add more docu ments without
10

physically changing anything that was in documents that had been sent before, is that
right?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes Chair, and just to clarify further none of the
evidence that was in the docket initially, including the suspect evidence , or the evidence
that was obtained suspiciously was ever removed from the docket.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: So all the evidence in its entirety was there including
that which the CIG had themselves collected.
CHAIR:

So would the position have therefore been that if after the additional

documents had been sent to the NPA you removed the additional documents that came
20

after what would have remained with the NPA would have been exactly what they had
had before the addition of the documents?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s exactly correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, alright.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

It is important to clarify the – in the

Werksmans’ report there’s evidence of changes to certain documents whether that is a

Page 136 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
change to the report or to documents contained in the docket we will clarify in due
course when we get there, but it’s important that we go there and you get an
opportunity to deal with that. However as I understand what you are telling the Chair is
that nothing was removed so that the original statements would have all been there, or
the original documents would have all been there?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Ja, all evidence taken at whatever stage was included
in that docket. Just in brief before we get there, only stuff which was altered in the
recommendation report, the opinion of Mr Khuba, was that which after review had, and
still has no evidentiary value.
10

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Because the report is what, as opposed to the
evidence?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Well the report ...(intervention)
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Let me put it this way is the report evidence?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: No it’s not. The report is an opinion of the investigator
based on what he analyses or assesses in the docket, so he could say based on what
he has there might be a case or now that they have exculpatory evidence I can no
longer sustain initially what I had suspected and that’s what happened in this situation.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Continuing, sorry Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: So we have referred from time to time to a docket that was sent to

20

the NPA. The docket would basically have been a file, is that a right?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes that’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And ordinarily would a docket that would be sent to the NPA include
statements from witnesses, plus a report from the investigator or a report containing the
opinion as you say or would the report containing the opinion be separate or be sent
separately or they would all be sent normally at the same time toge ther?

Page 137 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE:

Okay Chair the recommendation report is not

evidence, so only evidence and evidentiary statements are in the docket, so that is in
addition to the docket.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Is the investigator’s opinion and recommendation
report.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but normally they would be sent at the time, the report and the
evidence, the docket with the evidence?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct Chair, they go at the same time.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Yes okay, but what would otherwise be in the docket would be
witness statements, is that right?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And whatever exhibits may be – might be there?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: We will return to the statement in due course
when dealing with the Werksmans’ report Mr McBride but for the present at page 1232
paragraph 14 Mr Khuba says:
“At the time that I signed the January 2014 report and sent it to Mosingh the

20

following material evidence was still outstanding.”
He refers in paragraph 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 to certain statements including the warning
statement of General Sibiya, is that correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And then in paragraph 14.4 he says:
“Still outstanding was an expert analysis of the cell phone data which

Page 138 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
mapped the location of calls and sms’s sent and received at the relevant
times.”
You’ve told the Chair of the relevance of that cell phone data analysis?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Paragraph 14.5 he says:
“I was also still awaiting an expert analysis of the two statements that
Colonel Madilonga had made.”
And we have that evidence as well on record, but we will deal with that with Mr Khuba
in due course. And then in paragraph 14.6 he says that a copy of Madilonga’s three
10

statements are attached, my concerns about Madilonga’s credibility were confirmed by
the expert analysis that I subsequently received from Precision Forensics on 17 March
2014, and he attaches that report. Who was Madilonga?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Madilonga was the Crime Intelligence Officer who was
based at Beitbridge who allegedly phoned General Dramat to say the Zimbabweans
have arrived and they are on their way to you.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right, he was the so-called eye witness I
understand, is that correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Well he was a witness that linked, initially linked
General Dramat to the Zimbabweans arrival.

20

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Through the sms invitation?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: From memory it was a phone call.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

Okay, alright.

In any event he says in

paragraph 15 finally on page 1234 finally for present purposes not finally in his affidavit:
“After I sent the January 2014 report to Mosingh I continued to gather and
analyse the evidence.”

Page 139 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
That is consistent with what I understand your evidence to be.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Sorry Chair can you just remind me again which
number is it?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Page 1234.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes I have that.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Paragraph 15.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I have that yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: The first sentence.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes.
10

ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Is that correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: To your knowledge?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That’s correct yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And in fact you managed and directed that
further gathering and analysis of evidence, is that correct? After the January 2014
report or certainly after your briefing in March.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes. I think also what is key for the purposes of this
Rendition issues is that in 15 that on the 28 February Msoing replies to Ncuba and
advising that that evidence which had been emailed must now be attached to the

20

docket which now is at the South Gauteng DPP’s place. So that is – the second
sentence of 15 – oh the third sentence sorry Chair is critical.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Is you go to page 1266 you will see the
Annexure to the affidavit of Mr Ncuba. It is a communication from Anthony Mosing of
the NPA to Mr Ncuba dated the 28 February 2014.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Sir.

Page 140 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: The subject is Response to Questions posed
by IPID – Major General Shadrack Sibiya. It reads:
“Dear Mr Ncuba. In light of the fact that the matter has been
referred to the DPP of South Gauteng for decision that is the
Director of Public Prosecution South Gauteng you are requested
to file this evidence and the docket which is presently with the
DPP South Gauteng and in future forward any additional
evidence or other matter directly with him.”
It reads.
“Kind Regards A Mosing”

10

So it seems that the docket has already been handed onto the DPP for prosecution.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes safe to add that without the new evidence.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes. Indeed because that was still in the
process of being collated.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct yes.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And that is the point made in paragraph 15 by
Mr Ncuba as I understand it?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Sir.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: We will deal with the remainder of the evidence
20

of Mr Ncuba in this affidavit either indirectly through yourself when we deal with the
Worksman’s Report or directly from Mr Ncuba himself if and when gives evidence. So
for the present if we may return to your statement. If we can turn to Annexure E at
page 143.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes I have it.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: This is an application to the high court Gauteng

Page 141 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
Provincial Division to interdict your suspension and to obtain interim relief, is that
correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: That is certainly in Part A.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And Part B is to set aside your suspension on
various grounds?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Amongst those grounds on page 145 is that
10

the apparent empowering provisions empowering the Minister of Police to suspend you
or remove you from office as Executive Director of IPID would be unconstitutional?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: That is eventually what the constitutional court
found?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Although it was found that the matter was not
urgent and you were not afforded interim relief, is that correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: In that affidavit at page 161 you deal with the

20

matters related to the independence of IPID we needed traverse them again in any
more detail, do you see that?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And in – on page 163 you say in paragraph 37:
“In the context of IPID it is especially important that the Minster
of Police does not have a broad power to suspend the Executive

Page 142 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
Director. Given that IPID’s function is to investigate complaints
of misconduct by members of the SAPS and to maintain effective
oversight over the SAPS it is essential that the IPID remains
strictly independent of the SAPS. This must include the Minister
of Police who is politically responsible for the SAPS and who is
executive and political interests are thus bound to the fate of the
SAPS.”
In general terms those sentiments or propositions were accepted I understand by the
constitutional court in general terms not in their detail.
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And then in paragraph 45 on page 166 you
make the allegation as follows:
“As I have explained the Minister’s intention to suspend me is
calculated to undermine or suppress the IPID investigation report
that vindicates Dramat and Siniya and upon which the Minister
has relied to justify his suspension of them.”
That as I understand was your view at the time?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: The constitutional court made no finding in

20

respect of that allegation as I understand it?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct they did not deal with the merits of the
issue.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: In paragraph 27 you speak of a circumstance
that occurred before your suspension. Perhaps we should just put matters in their
proper context.

Page 143 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: What paragraph is that?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Paragraph 27.
CHAIRPERSON: 27.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC:

When, by whom and how were you

suspended?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: I was suspended by the Minister.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Minister of Police?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: The Minister of Police. And the Portfolio Committee
which should hold the Minister accountable and should be involved in the protection of
10

IPID’s independents did not intervene to protect the independents and hold the Minister
to account instead parts of the Portfolio Committee which is regarded as a study group
which involves the Minister and the ANC caucus of the Portfolio Committee came to an
understanding rather than them being different arms of the state came to an
understanding that Dramat should go and then Nhleko made a presentation in far as it
concerned myself with a range of allegations. I had written to – when these allegations
were doing their rounds I had written to the Portfolio Chair who was my predecessor at
IPID.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Who was that?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Mr Francois Beukman to give me an opportunity to

20

account for any allegations of whatever they concerned and his response to me was,
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: I am sorry just be – let us take it a little more
slowly if we may and step by step. You have told the Chair that you were suspended?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: The grounds for your suspension you say in
paragraph 26 were summarised or stated as being based on two contradictory reports

Page 144 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
emanating from IPID concerning the rendition saga, is that correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: So am I to understand correctly you were
confronted with the allegation or fact that IPID had issued two contradictory reports?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes that is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: And the inference was that the second report
was somehow falsified or prepared fraudulently, is that correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes that is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: In order to achieve a certain aim?
10

MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: That is the subject matter of the Worksman’s
Report which we will deal with in due course. But on this basis before your suspension
you wanted to approach the Portfolio Committee. May I just ask is there a difference
between the Portfolio Committee on Police and the Study Group that you referred to or
are they the same thing?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: No they are different things. The Portfolio Committee
is all party committee and it is a statutory body of Parliament.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes that is how we understand it.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Yes. Whereas the Study Group is a group which

20

includes ANC members which is only ANC members in the Study Group and officials
who attend the Study Group. So it is a – if I can just take it further? The Study Group
is actually an example of where Parliament fails to hold the Executive to account. Its
existence and a fact they have to agree on issues undermines the issue of separation
of powers and the issue of holding the Executive to account by its very existence as a
caucus.

Page 145 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: For the purpose of your evidence in paragraph
27 which entity were you seeking to address and which entity was chaired by Mr
Francois Beukman, the Portfolio Committee or the Study Group?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It was the Portfolio Committee the larger committee
multi party committee.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: But the decisions are taken in the Study Group.
Everything that is discussed in the Portfolio Committee and on one or two occasions I
have been called to this Study Group to explain or level allegations against me. I can
10

say with very little doubt in me that we – the present Study Group that is on its way out
was hardly ever supportive of IPID and its independence.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: But to answer your question Chair directly …
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: If I may just intervene there Mr McBride we
dealing here with the Portfolio Committee which is enjoined by Parliament to exercise
oversight and your evidence here is relevant to Parliamentary oversight.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Over what was occurring here. You asked Mr
Beukman for an opportunity on behalf of IPID before your suspension to address the

20

Portfolio Committee. What was Mr Beukman’s response?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: Mr Beukman’s response was that this matter is sub
judice
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Sub judice.
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: In court.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Correct.

Page 146 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: It was in court precisely for the unconstitutionality of
the Ministers unilateral decision to suspend me.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Alright. You then go on to say that quite
contradictory to the approach adopted by Mr Beukman in regard to your request Mr
Mhleko in fact did address the Portfolio Committee, is that correct?
MR ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE: That is correct Chair.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Right. Before you go on perhaps that is a
convenient time because we are at five o’clock Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes. Maybe tomorrow we should start at half past nine again or
10

nine o’clock.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: May we compromise at half past nine?
CHAIRPERSON: Oh.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Chair I have other matters to attend to.
CHAIRPERSON: You have other matters. Ja. Your – what is your current assessment
of whether we will finish tomorrow?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: My current is that we will not.
CHAIRPERSON: It is not pressure – it is not pressure on anybody I just want to assess
whether we should put in more time or not?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Yes I do not feel the pressure of more time

20

Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: I do feel the pressure of having to make a
forecast.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Chair the…

Page 147 of 148

 11 APRIL 2019 – DAY 81
CHAIRPERSON: Okay we should start at ten to give you that little bit of time in the
morning?
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair I would be grateful.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes. Okay alright. We will adjourn and then tomorrow we will
start at ten o’clock.
ADV PAUL JOSEPH PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We adjourn.
REGISTRAR: All rise.
INQUIRY ADJOURNS TO 12 APRIL 2019
10

Page 148 of 148