I
Extract from the report of the High-Level Review Panel Report on the State Security Agency, December 2018:
It is clear to the Panel that the SSA's SO unit, especially under Dlomo's watch, was a law unto itself and directly served the political interests of the Executive. It also undertook intelligence operations which were clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Information made available to the Panel indicated that these operations included, inter alia:
….
- Project Justice: This protect involved recruiting and handling sources in the judiciary in order to influence the outcome of cases against then President Zuma. Information provided to the Panel indicated that amounts of between R1,2 million and R4,5 million were routinely taken from SSA and provided to Minister Mahlobo whom, it is said, was responsible for handling these sources.
II
Extract from Sydney Mufamadi’s affidavit to the State Capture Commission, 30th November 2020
7.10. Project Justice: This project involved recruiting and handling sources in the judiciary in order to influence the outcome of cases against President Zuma. Information provided to the Panel indicated that amounts of between R1.2 million and R4.5 million were routinely taken from SSA and provided to Minister Mahlobo whom, it is said, was responsible for handling these sources.
7.10.1. The-Panel was told that this project was motivated by a perceived need to counter the influence of judges hostile to President Zuma. Allegations made were to the effect that judges were bribed to achieve this purpose. This should, however, be treated with extreme caution as one would not want to be party to the destruction of public confidence in the judiciary if there is no actual evidence that the operation was carried out to conclusion.
7.10.2. The Panel believed it was possible that this project did not exist and was instead used as a ruse to obtain State resources. However, even if this were so, funds should not have been allocated to a project of this nature which on all accounts constituted a serious breach of the constitutionally guaranteed separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.
III
Extract from the transcript of Sydney Mufamadi’s evidence to the State Capture Commission, 25 January 2021
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Let us deal with the next project,
Project Justice, what was involved here?
DR MUFAMADI: Well, this is a project which ostensibly involved recruiting and handling sources in the judiciary in order to influence the outcome of cases against President Zuma.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Right, now before you go on, recruiting and handling sources, would this have been
payment of monies?
DR MUFAMADI: Sorry?
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Would this have involved payment of monies?
DR MUFAMADI: Well, information provided to the panel indicated that amounts of R1,2 million and R4,5 million were routinely given from SSA and provided to Minister Mahlobo whom, it is said, was responsible for handling these sources.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: And these sources were whom, what category of person?
DR MUFAMADI: The panel was told that this project was motivated, as I said, by a specific need to counter the influence of judges hostile to President Zuma. Allegations made were to the effect that judges were bribed to achieve this purpose. This should, however, we thought be treated with extreme caution as one would not want to be party to the destruction of public confidence in the judiciary. That is what we thought and I will explain what I mean by that, because we were not provided with any actual evidence that the operation was actually carried out to conclusion. And if you want me to elaborate, I will.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Well, there will be further evidence. But let us just deal with the issue of sensitivity.
DR MUFAMADI: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: One acknowledges, without qualification, that this is a sensitive issue.
DR MUFAMADI: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: And that it should be handled with caution.
DR MUFAMADI: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Because public confidence in our judiciary and the independence of our judiciary is of prime importance to our constitutional democracy.
DR MUFAMADI: Sure.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: All that one can accept but if there is an attack on what might be termed the most valuable element of our constitutional democracy, that is an independent judiciary, this Commission is obliged to deal with it and the public have a right to know. Would you agree with that?
DR MUFAMADI: Absolutely.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: And what must occur then is that to the extent that it has been investigated, this matter should have come before this forum in public and secondly, if investigations have not been concluded, they should be.
Do you agree with that?
DR MUFAMADI: I agree but I must add this caveat, that on a matter of this gravity, we must refuse to be gullible.
Even everything that we have said about this unit and it work because if we run ahead of ourselves we will put the house on fire and one Afrikaans-speaking friend of mine used to say that they have a saying in their community which says do not start a fire which you may not be able to put off.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
DR MUFAMADI: Ja.
20 CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
DR MUFAMADI: So very important that we approach this matter with circumspection.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: And obviously one should not let a fire rage behind closed doors.
DR MUFAMADI: No, no, no, sure but also do not go public and put out – put fire ...[intervenes]
ADV PRETORIUS SC: No, I understand that, yes. But if the matter was before the panel.
DR MUFAMADI: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: This was contained in the unredacted or the redacted report, as I understand it. No.
DR MUFAMADI: I do not ...[intervenes]3
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Or certainly the unredacted report.
DR MUFAMADI: Ja.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: But be that as it may, I do not want to go down that side, Chair.
DR MUFAMADI: Okay.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Let us just while the matter is before the Commission, it is a matter of sensitivity but it is a matter or utmost importance that it be dealt with and thoroughly investigated and that is perhaps something we would present to the Chair in due course. You would agree with that?
DR MUFAMADI: Yes but I hope you also agree with me when I say approach this matter with an open mind because I think – we had a sense that some of the operations could have been a ruse for moneymaking undertakings.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Yes, we will come to that in a moment.
DR MUFAMADI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: I think I understand completely what you are saying in terms of how it should be handled. I think you are saying while obviously anything that deserves to be investigated should be investigated. At the same time, we must not fall into the trap of giving credibility and credence to something that might have no credibility orcredence whatsoever.
DR MUFAMADI: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON: It is a balancing of the two considerations.
DR MUFAMADI: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON: You do not want not to investigate what may be genuine but at the same time you do not want to give credence to something that has no credence at all. It is just how you strike the balance.
DR MUFAMADI: And it is a delicate balance.
CHAIRPERSON: It is a delicate balance.
DR MUFAMADI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, alright. Mr Pretorius?
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Let us assume for the purposes of the next questions then, Dr Mufamadi, that this project was not carried out, right? It was conceived, we know that.
DR MUFAMADI: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: It was thought of by operatives and perhaps senior people within the SSA and money was attributed or given to this project. That in itself would be serious.
DR MUFAMADI: No sure, I mean, if you have a person whose imagination carries them that far and they are in the SSA then we are trouble. That is the imagination, then I am saying we are in trouble and you therefore need to get to the bottom of it whichever way.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Yes, yes. And there will be further evidence and we will explore whether there has been a full investigation.
DR MUFAMADI: Sure.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Or whether the fruits of the investigation have been disclosed to the Commission but that is another issue that will be dealt with in due course
but let us go to the proposition that you raised. On the assumption that the project was not carried out
...[intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, Mr Pretorius, I am sorry, I should have raised this while we were dealing with 7.9.
So, in terms of arithmetic, so in the 2015/2016 financial year it would therefore appear that, if the evidence of the person who gave evidence to the panel that Minister Mahlobo was given R2,5 million every month, so over 12 months that would have been around what? Over 20 million?
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Over 60 million, 4.5 times 12.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I am looking at the first one, 2.5.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: 30 million. You are testing my maths.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so then the 4.5 would probably be 60 million or ...[intervenes]
ADV PRETORIUS SC: 54.
CHAIRPERSON: 54.
DR MUFAMADI: Yes but, Chair, it depends, particularly with the first year.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
DR MUFAMADI: On when exactly in that year did this practice start.
CHAIRPERSON: Of course, of course.
DR MUFAMADI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, one would have to check, ja.
But nevertheless, large amounts.
DR MUFAMADI: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON: Large amounts. Okay, I am sorry, Mr Pretorius.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Yes and the totals are on the assumption of the full year.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes, ja.
DR MUFAMADI: Sure.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Let us just go back before we summarise Project Justice, Dr Mufamadi. You raise the possibility in paragraph 10.2 that this whole project was a ruse, albeit a very imaginative and create ruse, to obtain state resources. In other words, it was merely a cover for the theft of money from the fiscus, is that correct?
DR MUFAMADI: Yes but as you say it is speculation, yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Speculation and it its probabilities
...[intervenes]
DR MUFAMADI: Ja, sure.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: ...can be debated.
DR MUFAMADI: Ja.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: But it would seem a rather elaborate and dangerous ruse to conceal the theft of money. But that would be equally serious allegation –
well, not an equally serious allegation because it does not have the constitutional implications that the project would have if it had been carried out but it is serious in the sense that we are instructed that at least R24 million was involved here. You create a cover and you steal R24 million and you hand it in cash to Minister Mahlobo. That is a...
DR MUFAMADI: Ja, there are many elements of...
ADV PRETORIUS SC: That is a rather far-reaching, I would say, proposition.
DR MUFAMADI: Ja, no, sure, sure, but as you say, I mean, the illegality of money – first illegality of just the action itself but also the principle of the separation of powers.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Yes, could you say a bit about that, please?
DR MUFAMADI: Sorry?
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Could you explain to the Chair?
DR MUFAMADI: Yes, I am saying the independence of the judiciary, you forget about it if this project was indeed implemented. So it is not just whether there was an illegality, there is a more fundamental issue of whether we can – our system can still be relied upon to deliver on what it exists for if an arm of state, the judiciary loses its independence.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Yes, the point I think that you are making, if I can put it to you, is that broadly speaking there are a number of constitutional checks and balances built into the Constitution that deal with the judiciary.
DR MUFAMADI: Sure.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: And make the judiciary itself accountable in many ways.
DR MUFAMADI: Ja.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: To have a secret agency of government funded by the fiscus to interfere in the independence of the judiciary in a manner which is unaccountable is simply unconscionable. Would you agree with that?
DR MUFAMADI: Well, unconscionable but there, you know, our brief was to try and understand if we find that there are things that went wrong, how did they go wrong, when? You have got such checks and balances provided for in our system of government, our constitutional democracy. Anything that suggests that there was a subversion of independence of any one of these organs of state or even just contemplation of that subversion, it is a matter of grave concern.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, this evidence that the panel was told is quite concerning in terms of if these things are true, if they did happen. I mean, I have been sitting here – well, not all the time but we were sitting in another venue in 2018 and 2019 as the Commission but I have been hearing a lot of evidence of the past two and a half years and so from what you are saying here and I get the sense from Mr Pretorius that maybe there will be other evidence, it is not the first time that I hear evidence or that I may be hearing evidence to say so and so says he used to give money to so and so to pass on to President Zuma. I heard evidence like that from Mr Agrizzi saying that monthly BOSASA or Mr Gavin Watson gave money to Ms Dudu Myeni to pass on to Mr Zuma.
I do not whether it was R100 000 or R300 000 but some money. There was no evidence – there has been no evidence that that money was received by Mr Zuma.
But I am just saying, you know, when I sit here, I remember other evidence that I have heard. So here I am saying that this would be the second time I hear evidence of that nature. Okay, Mr Pretorius?
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Is the reading of paragraph 7.10 correct, that the sources referred to in the judiciary are in fact judges?
DR MUFAMADI: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: And that allegations were made to the effect that judges were bribed to counter the influence of judges hostile to President Zuma, that was what you were told?
DR MUFAMADI: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: But you say there was no actual evidence that the operation was carried out and we have dealt with it to an extent at least on the basis that such a project could ever have been conceived?
DR MUFAMADI: Yes but as I say it was not our place to dig deeper than that.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: And we are ad idem are we that this is a serious matter warranting the fullest investigation.
DR MUFAMADI: Sure.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: We know that Minister Mahlobo gave evidence or spoke to or was interviewed by the panel, correct?
DR MUFAMADI: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: And we have been given access to a recording of the interview he had with the panel.
Unfortunately, that recording is entirely corrupted and we’re trying to see what we can do about it but perhaps you can help us. Do you recall whether this series of actual allegations under the head project Justice were put to Minister Mahlobo?
DR MUFAMADI: Ja, as you say, it’s really unfortunate that the part of our hearings with – was covered – was recorded and it’s not possible to record it and I’m talking about technically was – the line was corrupted because I would have asked for that myself so that I could then, without relying on memory say, these are the questions which we put to Mr Mahlobo and this is how he responded.
So, I have no recollection of questions we put to him in this regard and how he responded. I would rather suggest that the Commission find a way of taking these matters further within.
IV
Evidence of State Security Agency Acting Director General Loyiso Jafta to State Capture Commission, 26 January 2021:
ADV PRETORIUS SC: This evidence may yet be forthcoming but we do not have it as yet but in relation to the most recent questions and answers this afternoon and by way of example Project Justice we were told by Dr Mufamadi that there was no evidence that the money allocated for the project reached its final destination to put it bluntly bribery of Judges. The question is why do we not know that? Or do we know that and it is just too sensitive a matter to place before the Chair? And either could be logically an explanation.
MR JAFTA: Chair the – that in respect to that specific example we have – we have very strong circumstantial evidence. What we do not know – what we do not have and it is because – let me not go into that because Chair. We have very strong circumstantial evidence that some of the money went into the hands of some of the members or a member of the Judiciary. But I do not have sitting here now is absolute concrete evidence of that.
Remember Chair all of these things that we are talking to and I am sure you might hear I do not know who else is coming here. We are talking about cash transactions. It is money that gets delivered to A and A delivers it to B. CHAIRPERSON: And there is no receipt.
MR JAFTA: And there are no receipts. To give you an anecdote Chair to illustrate the point. One member says to me – two actually say they had a very wonderful – there was a wonderful period in their lives where I do not want to implicate people Chair so I will speak in these terms.
They took money to A and A helped himself to some of the money that was in the bag. But from head office the money was almost as even as – as this page is. But A then took some money so that by the time they went to B the money was not as even as it had been – and they evened it up themselves.
CHAIRPERSON: Now when you say you mean in terms of the pile?
MR JAFTA: Yes how high it is yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MR JAFTA: Because then he wanted to remove doubt by the time they get to B the bag had been tampered with.
CHAIRPERSON: Or it might be even but lower.
MR JAFTA: Yes. So these two members said to me, no we had a wonderful time when we delivered that consignment of money. Now they will tell me they did but where is the evidence of it? It is very difficult. I believe them because whenever else they talk about – they share information it is always accurate – it is always authentic. But I do not have the evidence. I do not have the evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: You said the – the strong circumstantial evidence that you I guess are aware of in pointing towards some money having been given to a member of the Judiciary.
MR JAFTA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Can – would it be fair to say to the extent that Project Justice seems to have talked about Judges you are not aware of any other case involving a member of the Judiciary where there seems to be some strong evidence?
In other words were you aware of strong and you emphasise circumstantial is it not? It is in respect of one.
MR JAFTA: Absolutely Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: So that is the position?
MR JAFTA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Mr Pretorius.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Are you satisfied then that the circumstantial evidence that you have has been fully investigated? Have you asked the Judge concerned?
MR JAFTA: No, no we have not – we have not asked the Judge.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Do you intend to do so? Have you investigated the Judge?
MR JAFTA: It is unavoidable that we have to at some point.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: So investigations are on-going?
MR JAFTA: Investigations are on-going.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Well then I will not ask my further question because that may disrupt those investigations.
V
Extract from the evidence of “Ms. K” to the State Capture Commission, 28 January 2021
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Let us deal with the next operation, Operation Justice and Simunye. 6.26 reads?
“Operation Justice concerned the alleged influencing, recruiting and handling of sources within the judiciary.”
We have learnt from previous evidence that sources there meant member of the judiciary, am I correct?
MS K: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: The second sentence reads:
“The purported aim was to ensure harmony between the State and the Justice fraternity and allegedly included efforts to influence the outcome of cases.” Was that what the investigation was told or established?
MS K: That is what we were told, that is why we say purported aim. I cannot remember whether we were told – ja, we asked questions, we sent written questions to certain individuals and that is the response that we got and apart from that I think it will also be addressed in 6.27.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Did you ask these questions of persons involved in execution of the project?
MS K: Yes, specifically those who had taken TAs for Mayibuye because in Mayibuye you had all of these operations, so we had to pose that question in writing and we got written responses where before we even had a face to-face interview with some. So that was – we did get written responses that were explaining what this was about.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Right.
MS K: From certain implicated individuals.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: These written responses, the documentary evidence and the recorded oral evidence are a matter of record, is that correct?
MS K: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Paragraph 6.27 reads:
“From a submission dated 20 July 2015 requesting authorisation for the renewal and funding of Project Mayibuye it appears that Operation Justice was the continuation of an earlier project called Simunye.”
Is that correct?
MS K: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: This submission is included in file 2 of the SSA bundle and is marked as annexure M4. File 2 is the subdivision, Chair. I hope your file has been
subdivided into the three files.
MS K: Yes, it is.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: But SSA1 is the file that we need to look at for annexure M4.
MS K: Page?
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Let me get it for you, hold on, please?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius did you say my file has already been subdivided?
ADV PRETORIUS SC: I cannot say [inaudible – speaking simultaneously]
CHAIRPERSON: No, it is fine if it has not, I just wanted to make sure that I heard you correctly because I did not think it has been ...[intervenes]
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Is it not there?
CHAIRPERSON: Well, does not look like. I have got some pink dividers that have been put in but there is nothing written on them to indicate this is supposed to represent file 1 or what.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: My apologies, I will see to that personally after the adjournment.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and there are two of them and not three, so I do not know.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: If you would go to page 380 of SSA1.
MS K: Yes, I am there.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: That is annexure M4. It is a letter addressed to the Director General SSA dated 20 July 2015, it has been declassified.
MS K: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: And it is a letter whose purpose is to renew and fund a cover project and payment of related expenses for Project Mayibuye. Do you see that?
MS K: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: If you would just bear with me for a moment, Chair? And paragraph 2.4 on page 381 reads:
“Project Simunye was intended to intensify and strengthen state authority within the judiciary system under which contact and relevant assets were to be acquired, utilised for the purpose of positive influencing state power and control of the judiciary.”
Do you see that?
MS K: Yes, I do.
CHAIRPERSON: So that in writing is the motivation for the renewal and funding of cover project under Project Mayibuye in that letter date 20 July 2015.
MS K: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: In case it makes any difference, Mr Pretorius, where you said control of the judiciary, it says control over.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Control over the judiciary, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, on the letter.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: My apologies, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: That statement that the project was intended to influence state power and exercise control over the judiciary, is that consistent with your knowledge of what you were told about Project Justice which later
[inaudible – speaking simultaneously]
MS K: No. No, not verbally, we were not told that. We just discovered it in the submissions, the documentation.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Right.
[CUT]
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Let us got to the document referred to in paragraph 6.29 please.
MS K: Yes?
ADV PRETORIUS SC: It is annexure M15.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you done with the document at page 380?
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Yes, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay.
MS K: Yes, I am at M15.
CHAIRPERSON: What page is M15?
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Yes, 6.29, I am just getting the page. Page 453. If you go to page 454, a description of Project Mayibuye and particularly Project Justice and
Operation Sesikona, Operation Justice and Operation Sesikona is dealt with. Would you go there please?
MS K: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: It is in paragraph A of 2.4.
MS K: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: It reads:
“Achievements...”
That should be placed in context – let me take a step back – of the purpose of the communication dated 31 May 2016, a declassified document addressed to the Director General of SSA, it is headed:
“Request for authorisation, renewal of cover Project Mayibuye and payment to the expenditure related to Project Mayibuye from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.”
And you have told the Chair Operation Justice was part of Project Mayibuye.
MS K: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: If you look at the following page 454, para 2.4[a] it is headed achievements:
“Amongst other operation through Project Mayibuye Chief Directorate Special Operations managed to gain access and interaction with the Justice [Ops Justice] system through what was becoming an alarming concern over the friction that existed between the State and the justice utility.”
That should read “justice fraternity”, and I presume the pun was unintended.
MS K: [laughing]
ADV PRETORIUS SC:
“In the same breath CDSO contributed largely to the rise in confidence in the justice by the public through its influential role in the media reporting, utilising well placed media personnel. Operation Sesikhona is another of such success here the project aimed at stabilising the nature public practice by the group in Cape Town, but also ensure that the nature of protests do not undermine the integrity of the State, nor do they cause a negative impression to investors.”
Apparently, the influence of the CDSO operations has forced the organisation to adopt a much more moderate approach in the form of protest. We will come to that in due course. But do you confirm that that extract that I have just read to you is contained in an official declassified SSA document?
MS K: Yes, I can confirm that.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: We go to paragraph 8.30 please, sorry, 6.30. It reads:
“Amounts of between and 4.5 million Rand were regularly taken from the SSA and allegedly and delivered to Minister Mahlobo, who is reported to be the person directly making onward payments as part of Operation Justice. One of the implicated individuals confirmed that she had personally delivered R4.5 million to Minister Mahlobo’s office on at least three occasions.”
What do you say about that paragraph?
MS K: I can confirm that that what was said.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Said to the investigation team during the course of its investigations?
MS K: Yes, also in writing from the implicated individual.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Right, paragraph 6.31 reads:
“Mr Frank pseudonym confirmed to the investigation team that he was instructed to deliver money regularly to Minister Mahlobo for Project Justice starting at R1.3million but extending upward to R21.8million. He asserted that he was not aware of the details of Operation Justice beyond the general context that, “there was a complaint that the Judges were colluding to overthrow the government. So and operation was established”, and his deliveries of cash to the Minister's office were, “to deal with the issue of Judges.”
Was that information given to the Veza Investigation as part of its investigation?
MS K: Yes, we had a – it was through an interview with Frank.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Right, and then paragraph 6.32:
“Needless to say, the very existence and stated purpose of Operation Justice, irrespective of whether it was indeed implemented, constitutes a
fundamental breach of the separation of powers and an unconstitutional attempt to compromise the independence of the judiciary.” What do you say about that statement?
MS K: I agree with that statement fully.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: DG Jafta gave evidence that the investigations were ongoing. Do you know of that?
MS K: Pardon?
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Director General Jafta or Acting Director General Jafta, gave evidence this week.
MS K: Yes.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: That the investigations into Operation Justice were continuing. Is that correct, can you confirm that as part of the investigation team?
MS K: The investigation is ongoing. However, I think I have to postpone my response to this and include that in my statement.
ENDS
All original documents can be found in PDF on www.statecapture.org.za
