IN THE GONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CC CASE NO. CCT 172/24 In the matter between:- NOMALANGA MOROADI SELINA GHOLOTA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT First Respondent DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Second Respondent NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY, Third Respondent DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: & CO-OPERATION Fourth Respondent FILING SHEET: THIRD RESPONDENT’S ANSWERING AFFIDAVIT Filed by: Ms G.E/Cawood Attorneys for defendants [Signed as an attomey duly admitted in terms of ¢ 25(3) of the Legal Pradice Aci, No, 28 of 2014 to appear in the High Court of South Africa] THE STATE ATTORNEYAND TO: AND TO: Per: Ms C.E. Cawood 9! Floor Fedsure Building 49 Charlotte Maxeke Street BLOEMFONTEIN 051 4004 304/082 771 1944 SSawesdd [Ref: 619/202101405P12A} ustice.goy.za THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUTIONAL COURT JOHANNESBURG: MORAKILE TIBANE ATTORNEYS ING Attorneys for Applicant 48 Atholl Oaklands Road Fussell House, First Floor Melrose North, JOHANNESBURG Tel: 011 025 2694 Cell: 076 263 2977 E-Mail: P,Thene@mitlecal.co.ze REF: Piet Tibane/Cholotaicc2024 AND TO: MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND THE DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES [By electronic mai] AND TO: DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS [By electronic mail]IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CC CASE NO. CCT 112/24 ‘ In the matter between:- NOMALANGA MOROADI SELINA GHOLOTA, Applicant ang THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND. CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT First Respondent DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Second Respondent NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY Third Respondent DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & CO-OPERATION Fourth Respondent THIRD RESPONDENT'S ANSWERING AFFIDAVIT I, the undersigned BENJAMIN FREDEMAN CALITZ do neredy make oath and state that 4. 1 am a Captain in the Suth African Police Service with Persal number 0431262-7 attached fo the Serious Corruption Investigation Unit (SCI), etPage |2 Directorate for Pricrity Crime Investigation (OPC!) employed at Absa Building, Chariotte Maxeke Street, CBD Bloemfontein, Free State. i am duly authorised on benalt of the third respondent, the Netional Prosecuting Authority to oppose this urgent application fer direct access to the Constitutional Court, as is evidenced by the confirmatory affidavit of Advocate Navila Somaru, Director of Puble Prosecutions: Free State, boing the person responsible for instituting and conducting criminal prosecutions and performing duties incidental thereto within the Free State Division of the High Court of South Africa, which includes the magisterial district of Bloemfontein, being the court in which the applicant is facing criminal charges. Adyooate Somaru's confirmatory a‘fidavit confirming the aforesaid is attached marked "AAT" Save whete indicated otherwise by the context hereof, the facts and aliegations herein contained are within my own personal knowledge. They are also true and correct. Where | make legal submissions, i do so on the advice of the third respondent's legal representatives, whose advice | believe to be true and correct. [have read the founding affidavit of the applicant, Ms Nomatanga Moroadi Selina Cholota (‘Ms Choieta”) who is accused number 17 in the pending criminal proceedings in the Free State High Court relating to the Asbestos project.6. _Page [3 | set out herein the basis of the third respondent's opposition te the application pursued by Ms Cholota, | commence by setting out the sequence of events and facts that transpired when I, together with then- Brigadier (now Major-General) Nico Gerber (‘Brigadier Gerber’) interviewed Ms Cholota in Baltimore, Maryland and Washington D.C in the United States of America on 22 and 23 September 2021. It will emerge from such facts hat Ms Cholota's allegations of breaches of her constitutional rights during such process, and in the events leading up to and post such interviews, are non-existent. She was afforded all the protections afforded to her by the Constitution Furthermore, it is denied that Ms Choiota is being criminally prosecuted on 8 counts of fraud, $ of coruption and multiple counts of money laundering because of her political views or because of any political opinions she may hold, as alleged. In any event, | am advised that a political motivation for a prosecution is not @ valid grounds for having a prosecution set aside in any event. Afier | have covered the course of events that took place on 22 and 23 September 2021, and explained that her prosecution is not connected to any politics, | proceed to answer Ms Cholota’s application ad seviatia: It is submitted that not only has Ms Cholota not met the strict requirements: and exceptional grounds for cirect access to this court, but she has not established the grounds for urgency either. Furthermore, on the facts, there\4 Is no basis for this Court to grant any of the relief sought by her, urgently or olherwise. THE EVENTS OF 22 AND 23 SEPTEMBER 2021 10 4 During the course of my investigations into the Asbestos project, | received a statement and transcript of testimony Ms Cholota had given to the State Capture Commission of Inquiry, and also had access to her comouler and email accounts. After examining this evidence, 1 located email correspondence indicating that Ms Cholota, seemingly on oehaif of someone senior to her in the Office of the Premier of the Free State, nad requested and received payments towards @ bursary scheme orchestrated and managed by the Office of the Premier, and/or payments for other education-related activities, from a number of service providers to the Free State Province. Some of these requests and/or payments facilitated by Ms Cholota coincided with payments 41.4. received by alleged service providers from the Free State Depariment of Human Settlements in connection with the Asbesics project; and 11.2, then made from the bank accounts of certain alleged service providers or persons related to them.12. 13. 14, 415. % os a which service providers had been criminally charged in connection with the Asbestos project. The investigating team had numerous questions for Ms Gholoia relating to these documents which had deen evaluated. Given that we understood that Ms Cholota had agreed to co-operate with the State, we requested 10 interview her more fully, and in relation to the facts within ner knowledge while she was employed as the personal assistant of Mr Elias ‘Acc’ Magashule (‘Mr Magashule") and regarding the emails she sent and received, as these documents, together with the payments received, met the jurisdictional facte for the crime of corruption. At this stage, Ms Choloia had not been cited as an accused in the Asbestos project case, because she had co-operated with law enforcement. authorities. ‘The interviews with Ms Cholota were arranged through Special Agent Ms Denise Biehn (Special Agent Biehn’) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), Special Agent Biehn was, at the time, based in her corresponding embassy in South Africa. The FBI had previously located Ms Cholota in the United Slates, and thy made arrangements for @ small team to diive to her residence and escort her to atlend an interview with Brigadier Gerber and |. On the morning of 22 September 2021 and In Baltimore, Maryland, USA, Brigadier Gerber and |, together with Soecial Agent Biehn met two cr three g16. 47. 48. 19. Page 16 other FBI agents and we travelled in two sedan vehicles, neither of which were SUV nor biacked out, and arrived outside Ms Cholota's residence. Special Agent Biehn and her colleagues from the FBI went alone into the apartment building where Ms Cholota was residing and up the stairs to her residence. | am not aware of wnat transpired when the FBI agents arrived at Ms Cholota’s residence, but a short while thereafter, she emerged outside her apartment building together with the agents. Ms Choloia travelled alone, using her own vehicle, and followed the two vehicles we were travelling in, to the Sheraton hotel. The hotel was situated in Baltimore about 2 15 minute drive away from Ms Cholota's residence. A conforence reom had been organised for our use in the hotel by the FBI. When we arrived at the hotel, we proceeded to the conference room arranged fer us. Present in the roam wore Brigadier Gerber and |, Special Agent Biehn (who did not intervene in our questioning) and Ms Chelota. | introduced myself and explained the purpose of the intorviow, being that we wanted to inlerview Ms Cholota and take her staiement as regards the events pertaining to the Asbestos project in the Free State over the period 2014 to 2017. Ms Cholota attended the interview voluntarily and we informed her that she wes to be a witness for the State and we had questions for her based on her statements and testimony before the State Capture Commission of20. 24 22. 23. Page |7 inquiry and alsa email correspondence she had sent and received while employed at the Office of the Premier of the Free State. Ms Cholota informed us that she had classes al the University that afternoon and we agreed to accommodate her. She also indicated that her boyfriend, whose name | cannot recall, woud come to check in on her and we were amenable to that. Brigadier Gerber and | commenced our questioning of Ms Cholcta and, during the course thereof, showed her various documents which she would have known about, most notably her emails. ‘At some point during the moming, her boyftiend arrived and we paused the interviow for a short while, while she spoke to him in private. He then left and we continued questioning her. | recall asking Ms Choleta many questions and she seldom answered them fully and completely, often questioning their relevance. Ali her answers wore measured and careful and it was evident thet she had been taken off guard by the interview. In the early aftemoon, before we had finished our questions and after approximately three hours since we arrived et the hotel, Ms Cholota told us she needed to leave in order to reach her University in time for her classes. We agreed, but indicated that we trad further questions for her and she agreed to meet us the following moming in Washington D.C. Between us we agreed to pick her up ai a certain train station In Washington D.C. and2A. 25. 26. 2. Fage 18 we informed her that the second day of the interview would be conducted at the South African Embassy In Washington D.C. IMs Cholota told us that she would be contacting an aiterney about the interviews and we had no objection to that. She left the hotel in the early afternoon in her own vehicle, presumably to attend her classes in Washington D.C. At no stage during the course of the day on 22 September 2021 did Ms Cholota ask for an attorney to ba present, There would, of course, have been no need for her to do so, as we were interviewing her with a view to taking her statement as a witness for the State in the criminal proceedings by then already inetituted in telation to the Asbestos project. Later that afternoon Brigadier Geroer and | made telephonic contact with the prosceutor in the Asbestos project criminal matter, Adv de Nysschen and informed him that, in our view, Ms Cholota was not very co-operative ard had shown initation and frustration at many of our questions, especially when she was pushed for more details or further answers. Belween the three of us we discussed the possibility of the Stete charging her criminally alongside some of the other accused if she did not provide full answers to us, bul we agreed that a decision would be made the following day, dependent on Ms Cholota's demeanour and co-operation after having considered her pesition and recollected her thoughts.28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. The following day, on 23 September 2021, Brigadier Gerber, Special Agent Biehn and myself drove to a train station in Washington D.C., the name of which | cannot recall and collected Ms Cholota at the arranged time. We drove together to the South African Embassy where arrangements had been made for us to interview her in a private conference room. Again, only ithe same attendees as had been present in the room al the Sheraton hotel the day before were present. We continued our questions from the previous day and Ms Cholota was still questioned as a witness for the State. | asked her if she had spoken with har attorney overnight and she replied that she had not done so. Ms Cholota's demeanour and attitude towards our questioning nad not changed. She was still irritated with many of our questions, declined to provide detail when she wae asked for it, and reguiarly became frustrated when we pressed her to provide facts which had to have bean within hor knowledge. At some point in the morning, we had a break from the interview and Brigacier Gerber and | spoke and decided that, owing to Ms Cholota's lack cf co-operation, we would now have to issue her with a waming statement and treat her as a suspect in relation to the Asbestos project. When we resumed the Interview after the break, we informed Ms Cholota accordingly and began completing the “Statement Regaraing interview with34, 35. \19 Suspect’ document, a copy of which is attached to Ms Cholota’s founding affidavit 3s “NMS6". | note that some portions of thal annexure are obscured and | accordingly attach a ciear copy marked “AA2”. The purpose of this document Is to comprehensively watn a suspect of their constitutional rights before they make a statement regarding the offence/s they are suspected of having committed. The completion of 3 waming statement does nat mean that a person is arrested, but rather is a standard document completed by members of the South African Police Service prior to @ person who has become a suspect, being quastioned as a suspect ‘As appears from the warring statement | took from Ms Cholota, which is fully initialled and signed by her as being a true and correct reflection of the interview 26.1. she was interviewed as a suspect commencing at 11h25 on 23 September 2023 at the South African Embassy in Washington DG; 35.2. the alleged offences she wae suspected of being involved in were corruption, money laundering, theft and fraud committed at the Free Slate Deparimeni of Human Settlements and the Office of the Free Stale Premier during 2014 to 2047; 38.3. she was afforded an opportunity to make a statement concerning the allegations against ner but had the right to remain silent,36. 35.4. 35.5. 35.6. 35.7, 35.8. 35.9. 35.10. Page [11 she was entitled to consult with a legal practitioner cf her choice, which nght Ms Cholota exercised; as a result of Ms Cholota exercising such right, she was afforded the opportunity to consult with an attorney at her own discretion; Ms Cholota was asked if she wished to make @ statement and indicated that she was willing to personally draw up a statement and furnish it to me on or before 23 Octoher 2021 no questions were put to Ms Cholota: Ms Cholota indicated during the interview that she was not injured: Ms Cholota stated that she was not in any way threatened, assaulted or influenced to exercise the options | had put to har; the statement was commissioned and completed at 12h05. When Me Cholota indicated to me that sho wished to oxerc'se her right to coneult a lagal practitioner, | paused the taking of the statement end Brigadier Gerber approached Col Mabelane who was stationed at the Embassy to enquire whether there were any legal representatives present. He informed that there are no representatives. | thereafter irformed Ms Cholota of the position and continued completing the warning statement37. 33. 39. Page |12 Mg Cholota was handed a copy of the warning statement, Brigadier Gerber and | offered to drop Ms Cholota off at her University for her classes, which offer was accepted by her. Prior 10 Brigadier Gerber, Special Agent Biehn and | driving her to her University in Washington 0.C., Ms Cholota had photographs taken with the Ambassador at the South African Embassy. | have one such photograph still in my possession, a copy of which is aitached marked “AA3" In the photo (left fo right) are Col Mabelane, the South African Ambassador to the United States of America, Ms Nomaindiya Cathlosn Mfeketo, and Ms Cholota. We then dropped her off at her University, as aforesaid. Ms Cholota was interviowed in total, for approximately three hours on this day. After she had been informed that we were treating her as a suspect. neither | nor Brigadier Gerber asked her any questions pertaining to the Asbestos project. I simply proceeded fo complete the warning statement. it wes only during the taken of that statement that, for the first time on either day, Ms Choloia requested 19 consult with a legal practitioner. As one could not be found for her, no statement in relation to the allegalions against her was taken Neither | nor Brigadier Gerber have had any contact with Ms Cholota or her attornay since 23 September 2021. Neither Ms Cholota nor her attorney have provided the investigating team with her statement as she had agreed nat 42 44, Pace [13 to compile (a fact which appears in the warning statement), by 23 October 2021 or at all It emerges from the events described above that Ms Cholota was never detained, threatened, or denied her constitutional righis, nor was she subjected to ‘apartheid era tactics’, by Brigadier Gerber or |, during the course of our interviews with her on 22 and 23 September 2921. In fact, she was allowed to travel on her own accord, she met with her boyfriend, we accommodated her class schedule and even fetched her and dropped her off where she required to be. She happily asked Brigadier Gerber to take photos of her with the Ambassader, with which request he obliged A confimatory affidavit of Brigadier Gerber confirming as correct the aforesaid events is attached markad “AA4™ I submit that the allegations now made against our conduct and the assertions that Ms Cholota’s constitutional tights wore breached have been concocted in an effert to avoid her return to South Africa to face the charges set out against her in the indictment in the Asbestos project matter. Ms Cholota’s legal counsel had informed the Free State High Court on 20 January 2023 in open court during a pre-trial proceeding that Ms Cholota would voluntarily return to the country to face trial. By 3 May 2023, her attomey, Victor Nkhwashu, advised the prosecutor Adv de Nysschen that he had not received any instructions from Ms Choiola or her family pursuant to that undertaking made in January 2023 2s to her voluntary return to45, 46. 47. South Africa. A copy of the email correspondence between recording the aforesaid is attached marked "AAS". Ms Ghotota has not returned to South Africa to stand wial and face the criminal charges brought against her related to the Asbestos project, voluntarily or otherwise, albeit her legal representatives had informed the Court she would do so in January 2023. Now, as at June 2024, Ms Cholota has made a volfe face and not only is she opposing the extradition proceedings in the United States, but she seeks an order that her arrest warrant be set aside on nebulous grounds, making assertions that are unsubstantiated, inconeistent with the truth and defamatory of me. A person allaging infringement of constitutional right bears the onus of establishing it. This is the position, whether or not the right to freedom is alleged to have been compromised.’ Ms Cholota has not discharged the conus resiing on her. This application is baseless, on the grounds that none of Ms Cholota's constitutional rights have been breached. There is no cause for setting aside her search warrant or for the extradition request being declared to be Invaiid on these grounds. ABSENCE OF POLITICAL REASONS BEHIND THE PROSECUTION OF MS CHOLCTA 1 Minisier of Safety and Security v Sakhoto and Another 2011 (5] SA 387 (SCA\.AB, 49, 50. ot _ Fags |16 Settled law dictates thal prosecutions must commence and continue where reasonable and probable grounds for prosecuting exist After a thorough investigation was conducted through which documentary evidence was obtained, there was sufficient evidence on the face of the documents obtained, to charge Ms Cholota in relation fo the role she played in the Asbestos project. Despite this, | euspectod that Ms Cholota did not act of her own accord when she sent the mails sha did asking for payments from suppliers. Given Ms Cholota’s initial co-operation with the State Gapture Commission of Inquiry and with the investigating team, she was accordingly not charged in relation to the Asbestos project, However, when she failed to co-operate with the investigators, which emerged during the course of the interviews referred to above, her position as State witness changed and she was warned that she was a suspect — this based on the evidence | had already gathered against her. | decided that the facts available at the time constituted offences and that @ reasonable person could have concluded that Ms Cholota is guilty of the offences. Ms Cholota does not even set out any suspicions as io why she asserts her alleged political opinions are the basis for her extradition and for the laying of the criminal charges against her. Her founding affidavit is completely silent in this regard, Aside trom Ms Cholote’s repeated references to the fact that Mr Magashule, a former ANC executive couric member and Premier of the Province of the Free State was her boss and that she ae52. 53. 54, 95. Page |16 reported to him as his personal assistant, Ms Cholota’s politics are entirely absent, It is notable that Ms Cholota has not sought to review the decision to prosecute her. Ms Cholola's allegations as to some political motivation being behind the charges she faces is submitied to be mere a conspiracy theory and a fanciful creation of her own mind, without faotuel basis. The facts that Ms Cholota facilitated payments fiom suppliers, in the knowledge thal the payments were unlawfui | believe, emerge clearly trom her emails in the docket The third respondent has a duty to prosecute without fear, favour or prejudice and, it is cubmitted, t has complied with this duty. But even if some ulterior motivation could be established, which has not been so established, this alone dees not render Me Cholota’s prosecution unfair. In National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma 2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA) at para 37, the Supreme Court of Appeal said as follows with regards to alleged political reasons for pursuing a prosecution: “A prosecution is not wrongful merely because it is brought for an improper purpose. It will only be wrongful if, in addition, reasonable and probabie grounds for prosecuting are absent, somothing not allaged by Mr Zuma and which in any event cen only be determined once criminal proceedings have been concluded. The motive behind the prosecution is irelevant hecause,Page [17 as Schreiner JA said in connection with arrests, the best motive does rot cure an otherwise illegal arrest and the worst motive does not render an othemwise legat arrest illegal. The same applies te prosecutions,” [Footnotes omitted.) 56. Unless Ms Cholota can provide evidence that her prosecution was not intended to obtain a conviction? Me Cheleta has a case to answer. Her allegations that she is prosecuted because of her poltical opinion is her clutching at straws in an atiempi to evade the law taking its course. Because there are reasonable and probable grounds for her prosecution in our submission, but which, the SCA points out, can in any event only be determined once the criminal proceedings have concluded, political opinion, interference or even motivations, are not a ground upon which Ms Cholota can rely in support of the relief she seeks from this court. AD FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT Ad paragraphs 1 and 2 87, Those ailegations are noted. Ad paragraph 3 58, These allegations are deniad. Ad paragraph 4 2 See Zuma at para 38.“6 age |18 58. 3 These allegations are noted, 60. tis denied that Ms Cholcta has met the requirements for urgency or direct access and further that the factual anc legal backgrounds she has set out are accurate. 81. Furthermore, her matter is certainly not in the public interest 62. On the contrary, it is in the public interest for accused persons, particularly when they are fugitives fram justice located in @ foreign jurisdiction, to be extradited to the countries seeking to prosecute them. Such persons ought to iave the criminal charges brought against them. This is even more so when jraud and corruption pertaining to millions of Rands of public monies aro at stake. It is not in the public interest for such persons to raise interlocutory and unsupported preliminary objections to an investigation and extradition process when the forums for raising such objections still exist and will be available to the accused in due course. Ad paragraphs 5 and 6 63. These allegations are noted. 64. The relief Ms Choloia seeks however goes further than only her extradition, as itis premised on a finding that the actual criminal charges she faces are invalid and unconstitutional. Furthermore, the relief is overbroad andge] 19 unspecified in so far as an order for the constitutional invalidity of the Extradition Act of 67 of 1962 Is sought, seemingly in Its entirety. Ad paragraph 7 66. These allegations are denied. Article 4(3) of the Extradition Agreement reads “...extradition shall not be granted if ihe executive authority of the Requested Siate determines that {here aré substantial grounds for belleving that ihe request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing @ person on account of that person’s gender, race, refigion, nationality, or political opinion." 88. The ‘Requested State’ in casu is the United States of America. ff Ms Cholota wishes to raly on Article 4(3} of the Extradition Agreement as a means by which she should not be extradited back to South Africa, then she ought te take steps in the United States of America to call upon the executive authority there to determine that substantial grounds oxist for believing that she is being prosecuted or punished for her political opinion. 67. It is not for this Court to make such a determination, as to da so would be entrenching on the separation of powers doctrine. Ad paragraphs 8 and 9 68. These allegations are noted.Page [20 69. The sald report dealt with this Asbestos project bu also the R1 billion Housing Project debacle. By the time it was published, the majority of the accused in the criminal trial were already facing criminal charges related to the Asbestos project and thus the prosecution was not based on the recommendations contained in the report. 70. From a reading of the report, it is evident that it focused on the procurement-related aspects of the Asbestos project and not, in any detail, ‘on what the service providers did with the monies they reosived from the Free State Department of Human Settlemenis relating to the Asbestos project. Consequently, not ll of the persons criminally charged relating ta the Asbestos project aro mentioned in ths said report 71. The third respondent was not however. by any stroteh of the imagination, restricted to investigeting only where recommendations +o that e'fect were made in the report. Ad paragraph 10 72, These allegations are denied. 73. While it is correct thal the investigalion into the Asbestos project commenced after Mr Dukoana gave his testimony before the State Capture Commission of Inquiry, it is denied that the charges were brought by the third respondent on the basis of the recommendations cantained within the report.[21 74, The report was only oubiished in 2022, whereas the criminal prosecution against the majority of the accused had been brought in 2020 already, long before the relevant report was published and Its recommendations made public. Ad paragraph 14 75. These allegations are admitted 76. Mg Cholota was, at that stage, a witness for the State. This was because of her co-operation with and statement made to the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture. Ad paragraph 12 77. These allegations are admitted. 78. Notably Brigadier Gerber informed Ms Cholota at this stage already that he wanted to arrange a meeting with her Ad paragraph 13 79. These allegations are denied. 80. Altached marked “AA6” is an email string of communications between Ms Cholota, the investigating team and Adv de Nysschen over the following cays explaining what would be taking place with regards to her being a State witness._Page (22 81. Ms Gholota was invited to contact the Investigating team at any time. 82. On 2? September 2021, as mentioned above, there were only two vehicles that transported us and they were not SUVs nor blacked out. Ms Cholota drove alone in her own vehicle to the Sheraton hotel. 83, The “two white male investigators’ Ms Cholota refers to are myself and Brigadier Gerber. Adv de Nysschen was not present with us in the United States, Ad paragraph 14 84. | admit that it is my aifidavit that is atlached as “NMS4" to the founding affidavit. That affidavit was filed in support of the extradition request. | deny that it confirms Ms Cholate’s version of events. Ad paragraph 15 (including sub-paragraphs: 88. The allegations contained herein are denied. 86. | refer to whal | have already stated above regarding the intorviews which took place on 22 and 23 September 2021, but in particular, I wish to correct the following assertions made herein: 86.1. It was Brigadier Gerber that questioned Ms Choloia together with me and not Adv de Nysschen;86.2 86.3. 88.4. 66.6. 86.7, Page |23 ‘The interviews took place over two days, but Ms Cholota was not questioned for two days. In total, her questioning lasied approximately six hours; The questioning of Ms Cholota encompassed what she had testified about at the State Capture Commission of Inquiry as weil as other evidence the investigating team had procured, most notably her email correspondence; The questions we asked of Ms Cholota were all based on documents she either prepared, sent or received and which we provided her with copies of Nething asked of her was ‘weft beyond har station as a former PA’; Ms Cholota became frustrated and defensive when we pointed out that some of the answers she gave us differed from the contents of her own documents which she wes shown; Neither Brigadier Gerber nor | made any threats, acimonished Vs Cholota or inlimidated her. It is correct however that we told Mo Gholota to think about the matter overnight as her failure to co- operate may lead to us considering her to be a suspect, Ms Cholota either did -not contact her lawyer in South Africa overnight as she alleges, or she misled Brigadier Gerber and | the next day when she told us that she had not spoken with her88.8, 88.9, 86.10 Sage |24 attorney overnight, Had she informed us that she had done so, we would have made contact with the attorney the following day telephonically, or tried to arrange @ virtual consult with such person. In any event, these assertions can be safely rejected, as It beggars belief that any atlomey holding the view that members of the South African Police Service were unlawfully threatening and intimidating thair client, would sit idly by and allow such conduct to continue; The content of ‘NMS5" is noted but itis quite clearly Ms Cholota’s {incorrect) version of events; On the eecond day of the interview, it is correct that we informed Ms Gholota that her refusal to co-operate by answering the questions we posed te her would lead to her being considered a suspect and warned accordingly. There is nothing threatening encompassed in such a statement. The questions we asked of Ms Ghoiota were based on her own documents. There could net have been anything she honestly knew nothing of; Is Cholota voluntarily signed *NMS6". It is correct that she did not have a lawyer present at the time, bul the document does nothing other than confirm that she had been apprised of her constitutional rights and record how she elected to proceed in light of havingPege |25 been informed thereof. No questions pertaining to the case were asked after Ms Cholota exercised her right lo legal representation. Ad paragraph 16 87. These allegations are denied. 88. Neither | nor Brigadier Gerber questioned Ms Cholcta as to her political opinion. We do not even know what her political or pubic opinionis may be and such opinion/s are in any event, irrelevant to the prosecution. 89. The investigating officers and the prosecutor determined that reasonable prospects exist for her conviction on the charges she now faces and hence Ms Cholota was added as an accused in the Ashestos project matter. Ad paragraph 17 90. These allegations are noted. Ad paragraph 16.4 91, ‘These allegations are denied. 92 The investigators gained access to three email accounts used by Ms Cholota. Some 14 emails she sent of received are ditested in evidence against he’, as well the contents of her testimony given at, and statement {and draft statement) made to, the State Capture Commission of inquiry.Pag | 26 raph 93. These allegations are denied. 94. Only in the event that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that an emoloyee in the public service was involved in fraud. corruption and money laundering, or related offences in the performance of their duties, will they be questioned and potentially treated as a suspect 95. The same position would apply to anyone who is suspected of having committed an offence, whether or not they did so on behalf or at the instance of someone else, of of their own accord. Ad paragraph 18.3 98, These allegations are cenied, what is more they are not fully understood 97. Ms Gholote was never asked to depose or attest to a false statement at all, let alone by way of threats and intimidation. 98. Neither I nor Brigadier Gerber took any statement from her, seve for “NMS6", which is a recordal of Ms Cholota’s constitutional rights. We simply asked her to answer questions, and when sha refused to co-operate fully with us, we proceeded to warn her as @ suspecl, She was, at that stage however, not an accused. Ad paragraph 18.4Page [27 99. These allegations are denied. 100. It is clear, | submit, from what is set out at the commencement of this affidavit, that Ms Cholota was never detained, threatened or tortured, nor subjected to any inhumane treatment at the hands of Brigadier Geroer and |. Nothing that took place at our instance on 22 and 23 September 2021 In the United States of America was anything close to being simiar to the unlawfulness that occasioned many arrests and interviews during the apartheid era. 101. Iteke offenoe, and object, to my conduct during the interview of Ms Chelota as being labelled “eerily similar’ to the Apartheid govemment and uniawful in any way, Ad paragraoh 19 102. These allegations are denied 103. Ms Cholcta has nol described what is said to render her case exceptional. Ad paragraph 20 104, Save for admitting thal Ms Cholcta’s next scheduled appearance pertaining to her extradition will take plage in the United States on 7 June 2024, | have no knowledge of the remaining contents hereat. Ad paragraph 21105 106 107. 108. Page |28 Save for being unable to confirm or deny the allegations of high crime in Baltimore, Maryland, which in any event are matters for Ms Cholota to address before the courts in the United States of America that are seized with the extradition apolication, the allegations contained herein are denied. Ms Cholota was studying in the United States of America at Bay Atlantic University in Washington D.C. through a bursary awarded te her by the Free State Provincial Government in 2020. ‘On or about 16 August 2022 Mr Ralikontsane, Director-General in the Cffce of the Premier of the Free State Provincial Government gave notice to Ms Cholota of the possible termination of her bursary on the grounds of her tack of co-operation with law-enforcement in breach of her bursary agreement. While a copy of Ms Cholota's bursary agreement is not in my possession, Mr Ralikontsane alleges in his correspondence that she breachad tha terme thoreof by failing to co-operate with the South Aftican law enforcement authorities. For these reasons he afforded her an opportunity to provide representations as te why her bursary should not be terminated and payment stopped. A copy of this notice is attached marked “AAT. On an unknown dale, Ms Cholota replied te this notice setting oui the reasons why her bursary should not be cancelled. Of relevance, she alleged that stie nad never been instructed to do anything by the Hawks since we Interviewed her and that she provided the FBI with all the information they109. 110. 414 112. Page [29 needed from her. Neither of these assertions are correct. A copy of her representations are altached marked "AA&’. On or about 19 September 2022 Mr Ralikontsane tequesied Ms Cholola to repart to his office within 10 days in order to meet and resolve the Impasse, falling which her bursary would be revoked with immediate effect. A copy of this correspondence is attached marked “AA9". Ms Gholota did not attend such meeting within the time period afforded to her to do so or at all, and accordingly on 6 Cotober 2022 she was notified that her bursary had been terminated and that no further payments would be made, save for a flight ticket for Ms Cholota’s retum to South Africa to be covered in the event sh wished to return. A copy of this correspondence is attached marked "AiO", Ms Cholota did not return and instead remains in the United States. She is effectively a fugitive from justice. For the past 18 months then, Ms Cholota has not received any financial assistance from the Free State Provincial government towards her studies. Itis unknown to me whether she remains enrolled at Bay Atlantic University and, if so, who is making payment of her tuition and related expenses | am aware that in February 2023 Ms Chelcta was arrested and detained in the United States by their immigration agency known as ICE. | do not know all of the circumstances pertaining to her arrest, but understand thal it had someting to do with her student visa having expired. Ms Cholota wesPages |30 released from custedy in the United States and | do not believe any immigration-related charges were pursued against her at that time. 113, Ms Cholota's arrest and detention in the United States in February 2023 had nothing to do with the South African law enforcement authorites or the Asbestos project and any trial or extradition proceedings related thereto. Ad paragraph 22 114. These allegations are denied. 115. | emphasise that Brigadier Gerber and myself conducted ourselves within the confines of the law and assisted Ms Cholata where we could. 116. By way of correction, Brigadier Gerber and ! are employed by the South African Police Service and not the NPA, as alleged Ad paragraphs 23 to 26 417. While | have no knowledge of these allegations, the contents are noted 118. As a result cf Ms Cholota's co-operation with the Commission's investigators, she was initially considered to he a State witness. Ad paragraph 27 4119. While it is denied that nothing Ms Cholota did while employed at the Office of the Premier in the Free State was illegal or beyond the scope of herPs ra bed duties, | heve no knowledge as fo the remaining allegations contained herein, Ad paragraph 28 120. The allegations contained herein are denied. 121, Ms Cholota’s name is not mentioned in this report. Accordingly no finding, whether positive ar negative, was made in relation to her in the said report 122. These allegations are denied. 123. As explained above, not only is the NPA and the South Aftican Police Service not restricted to investigating further oniy these offences referred to in the report of the State Capture Commission of Inquiry, but it appears from a reading of the relevant report, that it focussed on the Asbestos project procurement alone, and it did not fully fellow and examine the flow of funds once monies had been paid to the alleged service providers. My later investigation paid more attention, inter alia, to those aspects. Ad paragraph 30 124, It is admitted that the NPA has not sought to review the report of the State Gaplute Commission of Inquity pertaining to the Asbestos project. Ad paragraph 34 =iFags [32 125. These allegations are admitted. Ad varagraph 32 126. These allegations are admitted. 427. The reason why Ms Cholota was prohibited trom contacting or being contacted by one accused, namely Mr Magashule, was because she had been employed as his personal assistant and was believed to be a State witness at the time that Mr Magashule applied for bail. As part of his ball conditions, this being standard practice, he was prohibited from having contact with any Siete witnesses, most notably Ms Choleta given her assumed close acquaintance with him and her having had access to his email accounts. Ad paragraph 33 128. It is admitted that many months passed before we wore in a postion to contact Ms Cholota with a view to her providing us with a statement. Regrettably, the SC! Unit has mary cases to investigate and not as many personnel as we would like. 4129. | have no knowledge as to the remaining allegations contained herein, Ad paragraph 34130. Save to record that the agreement in question is termed a Mutuel Legal Assistance Agreement, these allegations are admitted, Ad paragraph 35 131 132. 133. 134, ‘These allegations are denied. Without repeating myself | confirm that the only questions posed to Ms Cholota were those emanating from her own documents or emalis and would have been within her knowledge. The fact that Ms Cholota did not attribute ceriain instructions to her former bass had the result that she was then treated as a suspect in relation to some of the same charges Mr Magashule, her former boss, was facing. | deny that Ms Cholota’s liberty was ever threatenad, she was merely warmed that she was, owing to her non-co-operation, considered to be a suspect. The choice to co-operate or not was Me Cholota's to make. There was much evidence to hand that she facilitated payments from alleged service providers in rezpect of various bursaries and other educational- related expenses through the Oifice of tha Premiar in the Free State, In my view that evidence was sufficient to treat her as a suspect. Ad paragraph 36 135. The allegations contained herein are deniedPage [34 436. | expressly stated in my affidavit, which view | maintain, that thete was in existence sufficient evidence te charge Ms Cholota. This view was eventually shared by the prosecuting team and the lead prosecutor added her to the indictment as a co-accused. Ad paragraphs 37 and 38 137. Save for admitting that Ms Cholota is charged alongside Mr Magastuule, these allegations ere denied. 138. There are some 14 emails which form the direct basis of the charges against Ms Cholota and she had access to and used, three different emai! accounts. 139. | provided an example of Ms Cholota’s lack of co-operation, in my affidavit of "NMS4". At paragraph 7.3 thereof | state ‘When asked who gave the instruction she kept on answering, ‘the office of the Premier”. Ai no stage did she identify the instructor of tho coniont of such emails, but rather referred to the oifise involved, as indicated above.” 440. In such circumstances, | was constrained to treat Me Cholota as a suspect Ad paragragh 38 141. Save for admitting that the United States is pursuing Ms Cholota’s extradition back to South Aflica, these allegations are denied. ptage [38 442. No unlawlul intimidatory tactics took place, nor does Ms Cholota face any “trumped up" charges. The documentary evidence speaks for itself, Ad paragraphs 40 and 41 143. These allegations are notad. Ad paragraph 42 144, These allegations are denied. 145. Ms Cholota will have an opportunity to defend herself once she returns to South Africa to face the criminal charges contained in the indictment relating to the Ashastos project. 148. None of Ms Cholota's rights have been violated. The third respondent, as well as Brigadier Gerber and I, have followed the law in our handling of Ms Cholota, her interviews, administering her warming statement and in the extradition process. Ad paragraph 43 147. These allegations are admitted. Ad paragraph 44 148, These allegations are denied.Page [36 149. Me Cholota was advised as to the purpose of her interview and informed of her constitutional rights al the necessary stage when she was lo be veated as a suspect. We accommodated all her reasonable requests, including her transport arrangements, University classes and desire take photographs with the Ambassador. Ad paragraph 45 180, These allegations are denied. 151. Ms Cholota 's presently challenging her extradition in the courts in the United States. Any atguments she wishes to make about the alleged arbitrary deprivation of her freedom ought to be made in that forum, as her present detention is at the instance af the United States and subject to that country's legal process. Ad paragraph 46 152. These ailegations are admitted, Ad paragraphs 47 and 48 153. These allegations are denied. 184. Merely quoting a section of the Constitution does net mean that it is applicable to the facts of this matter, more so when, considered properly,Page [37 there has been absolutely no breach of Ms Gho'ota's constitutional rights as { have shown above. Ad paragraph 49, 155. The content of Article 4(3} of the Extradition Agreement is admitted. 156. Itis denied however, that any novel and arguable ponts of law are raised In this application Ad paragraphs 50 and 51 187. The allegations contained herein are noted 458, Ms Cholota has not told this Court, nor did she disclose to any of the investigating or prosecuting team, what her political opinion is, as defined in the decuments or cases referred to herein, or at all. | have no knowiedge of her views as to the conduct of government or poltical parties. 159. Notably, Ms Cholota does not contend that the charges she faces are fora political offence. Rightly s9, as ‘political offence’ has been defined by our courts as “one subversive of ihe sovercignty of the State and is directed against its safety or must have a background of that nature."> 9 See § v Devoy 1971 (3) SA 889 (A) at 9024-8.Page |38 160. None of the offences Ms Cholota is charged with are polifical in nature, but ate purely common law and statutory offences of fraud, corruption and money laundering Ad paragraph 62 161. These allegations are denied. 162. Ms Cholota ought to have approached a High Court first for relief in this matter. This Gourt’s direct access is not required nor justified in this matter. Ad paragraph £3 1 163. These allegations are deniec 164. Ms Cholota felt safe enough to pose for photographs with the Ambassador and to accept an offer of transport from Brigadier Gerber and | after she had been warned that she was a suspect. 186. Such conduct is submitted to be completely at odds with someone who had allegedly just bean throatened, intimidated, and refused! legal representation at her Embassy. Ad paragraph 53.2 196. These allegations are deniedPage [39 167. Only in the event that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that an employee in the public service was involved in fraud, corruption and money laundering, oF related offences in the performance of their duties, will they be questioned and potentially treated as a suspect. 168. The same position would apoly to anyone who Is suspected of having committed an offence, whether or not they did so on behalf or at the instance of someone senicr to them, or of their cwn accord and whether or not they are employed by the State 169. It is preposterous to suggest that legal advice must be obtained in order to perform every task, if such task is a lawful one. One would assume that it would be the exception to the rule that an employee would be asked to perform an unlawful task. Ad paragraph 3.3 470, These allegations are denied. 171. Ms Cholota was never asked to falscly implicate anyone or to attest to untrue facts. She was asked to answer questions within her knowledge and declined mezningiully to do so. 172. Ms Cholota’s liberty has not been threatened by virtue of the conduct of the NPA and the Department of Justice, She is an accused person in a criminal trial and the Extradition Act allows for the South African stale to secure herattendance in the county for purposes of trial, At that stage, she may apply for bail if she so wishes. Until and unless Ms Cholota is convicted of any crime and sentenced to imprisonment, her liberty remains unaltered 173. At the present time. it is the United States government that is holding Ms Cholota in custody. She had the opportunity to contest her continued detention in thet oeuriry before 3 court, but { understand that ste chose not to do so on of about 18 April 2024. meaning that she will remain detained pending the conclusion of the extraditan inquiry, Ad paragraph 54 174. These allegations are denied 175. Quite evidently Ms Chofota is pursuing this application in her own interests and to avoid having to retuin to South Africa. Ad paragraphs 55 and 56 4176. These allegations are danied 177. It is clear that Ms Choiota’s version of events during the interviews that took place on 22 and 23 September 2021 differ entirely from my version. That being said, it is submitted that such disputes can be decided on affidavit by applying the Plascor-Evans tule. When that rule is applied, Ms Cholota’s version simply does not withstand scrutiny.Page [at Ad paragraph 57 (including sub-paragraphs) 178. These allegations are denied. 479. | have cealt with all these allegations above and do not intend repeating them herein. Ad oaragraphs 58 10 61 180. These allegations are noted. Ad paragraphs 62 and 63 181. On her own version, Ms Cholota already intended bringing an application cf this nature prior to 9 May 2024. 182. Her signed affidavit was only served on the third respondent's attorneys on 6 June 2024 — a delay cf nearly one month. 183. Any urgency Ms Cholota now contends for will be self-induced and this Court should not come fo her assistanee in the circumstances. Ad paragraph 64 184. These allegations are denied. 185. Much of the information that has been placed before this Court is devoid of fact and contrary to the true events.Page |42 Ad paracraphs 65 and 66 186. These allegalions are deried 187. Ms Cholota’s ultimate liberty is nol affected in the event the extradition process Is allowed to 1un its course. Ad paragraph 67 188. The contents hereof are noted. The Mohamed matter however involved a deportation of an accused in order for him to face death penalty charges. It is clearly distinguishable from the facts of this matter. Ad paragraph 68 189. These allegations are denied. 190. The maiter is neither urgent, nor does it justify cirect access being granted 191. The aicia of this court in Women’s Lega! Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2009 (6) SA 94 (CC) is apposite: 4127]... tho power to grant iitigants direct access outside the court's exclusive competonce is one this court rarely exercises, and with good reason. It is loath to be a court of first and last instance, thereby depriving all parties to @ dispute of a right of appeal, itis also loath to deprive itself of the henefit of other courts’ insights.{28} In addition, a multistage Higation process has the adventage of isolating and clarifying issues as well as bringing fo the fore the evidence that is most pertinent fo them. This is undeniably @ case in which that process would be beneficial nol only to the titigants but also for the court.” [Fooinotes omitted.) 192. Ms Cholota has further not set out any facis, when read together with those contained herein made on behelf of the third respondent, which show that any of her constitutional rights have been breached in this matter. She has further not explained how her alleged political opinion prevents her ‘rom ultimately heing extradited to South Africa and facing criminal charges together with her co-accused in the Asbestos project matter. WHEREFORE the third respondent prays that the application for direct access be dismissed with costs, DEPONENT | heteby certify that the deoonent declares that the degonent knows and understands the contents of this affidavit and that it is te the best of the deponent’s knowledge both tue and comect This afidavit was signed and swom tobetore me at “Blotoct». onthisthe\llday of Tune 2024Page [44 and the Regulations contained in Government Notice R1258 of 21 July 1972, as amended, have been complied with. COMMISSIONER OF OATHS: REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT SOUTHAFRICA ELIZE CLAASSENS FREE STATE DIVISION + BLOEMFONTEIN! Flegistrar's Clesk High Court Bloemfontein vAA IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CC CASE NO. CCT 172/24 In the matter between- NOMALANGA MOROAD! SELINA CHOLOTA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT First Respondent DIRECTOR-GENERAL, BEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Seoond Respondent NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY Third Respondent DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & CO-OPERATION Fourth Respondent 1, the undersigned, NAVILLA SOMARU do hereby make oath and state as follows: 1, | am an aduit fernale, employed by the third respondent as the Director of Public Prosecutions: Free Stale.fur RAE? Wg hacy- D1 Wake deennn itd Ware pontess pesianatin: Pouce Official CRSA NamBeR 2 The facts contained herein fall within my personal knowledge and are beth irue and correct. 3 | have read the answering affidavit of BENJAMIN FREDEMAN CALITZ and | am fully conversant with the contents thereof. 4. Leenjirm the correctness of the facts alleged therein, and confirm the correctness of the allegations regarding me. In particular | confirm that | have authorised BENJAMIN FREDEMAN CALITZ to oppose this application for direct access to the Constitutional Court on behalf of the third respondent. WHEREFORE the third respondent prays that the application for dfdct access be dismissed with costs. | herehy certify that the ceponent declares that the deponent knows and understands the contents of this affidavit and that it is to the best of the ceponent’s knowledge bath ttue and correct, This gffdavit was signed and sworn to before me at BLOEMFONTEIN on this the 10" day of suNE 2024 anci the Regulaiions contained in Govamment Notice Ri258 of 21 July 1972, es _ amended, have been complied with. 1 1a6 me Tet, Bie iAlG Crk OTle pA STREET EDEMA Em FSO ayo 7A.24? — AN | scam STATEMENT REGARDING INTERVIEW WITH SUSPECTars amen) 4) Sours Arnican Pouce Senvict INSTRUCTIONS STATEMENT REGARDING INTERVIEW WITH SUSPECT 1. COMPLETION OF STATEMENT oj The stofion eamnmandar trust sonsili with the prosscutor an choumetances tn which the prmeculer ronuiren tuck a wating otclomant of a suspoct $a abtained. i avary ewok case, th suspect must be ‘nlorviewed and his staleriont must be completed. Thi stalemert must be comigleted every Yere.the Sugoect Is Oerviewed, Hraxpacive at whether she suspect hs been anested or 6k, {b} The meudar who conducts fre interview with the suspect hes fo ovimalete thks atatermont fully bv the presenee co! the suspect, {o) 4 thera io not enought opage on any of ha page, the member mut vordinun eA w eupatats Tolle page. “This tele must bs signed by fie merhen suspad, diterprotet abu the Commissioner of Gates and rust ‘be ntaahodlto the slatosnane, {8} The. Cormmizclonor of Gaths must sign on avery’ vege of the statement, {fo} the suspen is a child {below the aye of 12} the pazentiguardianiat appropriate aduk must stan every page of the statamert ' (9 Ail Gefations must ne ialtailed '9y the suspect, tha interpreter anit The ynembsr who sorducted the imerview with tho suopsnt, ox wil ua thei Comniselonar of Calne. Potageaph 1: i {ai Ths names of if persons exisont during tis Inewview must be réouded, This inekidas all mrembars preesr tha povent of bio ahi or a legal preettenor, (Gi Ae thls ropgaid Iratuction 8 (@) of the Poiey on thy Praveniion af Torture ave the Teeatrsent of Persone in Custody aftne South Afinan Polioe Service suast he taken inte axcourn, Paragraph & {ai The moniter should proferaity afiew proof of fiz of hor eppohiment before questioning the suapodt. “The sumpect must bo aware that the interview fs conducted by a member of the Sorvien, (0) The mersber has to inform the suspett that information site that connents hl or her wih an offinoe, inctuatage= = Pw natuie of fhe slteged afennas the time at, orfime patlod during, oF date on while, the atlenoe was alagealy commited the face tiers the offence was alagedly conaitted, (0) the aflggations against tha suspect rolate +o rors then one offense, he suspect emust ae fuly toed ag pYoregait With rogaid 10 gach of the Gtanass, Raragrersh 4: {a} Tha mambor must raered all te steps that he or she has teken te enable: the suspect 19 coment with a logal practioner, inclusing the parser who was norkacted (a.8, Logul Ald Roan, by whish member hovel manner axed whan, 1h) Tho reaults of the slope aust also be recoréed, including whather the interviow was canfirued or __Seepenees unl ne te aracttoner ofthe anspast wa prosesSAPS AM Gd — Peragragh 8: {2} # the suspeot ts willing to make o atatemont, fut net willing to make the sielement to the member, fhe cust may — patsonaly to the deal UP of 2 salanont: oF ~ inka aststemant toa. magiste or justice of te pase (6) Uf noihor of thoes ehoioas are uonoptebla tp the suapert. and hear abe has another proposal. siipuld be recorded 42 (@}. Paragnapts 8: (2) This pavegieph musi yp dplstec! no quasticas a pul ta tie suspect, (2)! the euxpaot incisafos thar he er she ja not wiling tx anawar aniy quvetions, this tofsaal must be reaoWad In the noaee below peragragh &, The suapest iiay tereaker not ie cuisationed dunhor. {eo} Any reaeon given uy the suspect ‘or the refusal ty arewer quuastions must iso fe recorded, (0) I the suspect does enswor questions, but is unwilirg in arewer any partiowlar question, thatparioutar ‘question must bs recorded in Anema B. Ths mofeber must indicate that the suspect is urvling 10 answer that gartioular question. Any iaanon givin by the szopost as to why ha ar she fo sealing fo ‘newst the qundtion, ahculd slog he recorded. Paragraph 7: a} The menor mst esoont whether the auspeat wan inure. (b) ‘the explanation givon ky tha ovepaut as a7 how hs or ia het! euatatned the iiuies mat ako be vacorded. Peragtapts 10: {el It the interviow fs interrupted at any staga, the duration af tha Intertupsion aed tha manon thavetnre mat be recnrated. {0} The suspect must, after resumption of the interview, unisas the intacrugtion was Of 2 lebvist nabire, agisn be inioimed ot has oF hee rights ae est out bribe etatomers, (o} The fact that tie fuspen! was egain formed, sms bs acortath by the member, Paragraph 141 ta) Alle tha intorviow, the member mit make sure that tho sidtement is rend ta the suspect andl the name of he reader, I'm nor te member, rust oe recordset. 2 GERTEICATE GY SUSPECT OF CORRECTNESS OF SECORD OF RITERVIEW (2) The suspect must alter complation of the irtevtew, complete this cartleate. (H) A witness who was present dusing the compievus af the oarilicare must also sige the sentlizate. 3, CERTIE‘CATE BY INTERPRETER (2) The interpraior must, ater comptetion of the Interview, complete ités eertticats,sere aK to) SSRION AND CRICHE H, sgtfezpore fears SOUTH AFRICAN POLIDE SERVICE STATEMENT REGARDING INTERVIEW WITH SUSPECT ‘Tita form enuot be caresstoted evry te « muqpecd to eeasticned, heesawstivs Gt whotior the suspect és tn eetaniien _after an: arrest ar ra, Here any opie provided ao the soem by InsttSuiere, soinne on a foo an aaah Me take te that mage, Polke mst £e alga ny the Susp Interpreter opuneNE as CaMenesHiCKr OF Oath, Whe eutnd ant inferpretar inte the oot. Hpg atta te me a aes | informed the suspect that { have the thavaemanttonael rant the South Aes |investiatingsie atoged chanca(a}* of. en Pe eg | sf) Sse een eA ve ~ oe escent cee yeencteeent caves + merder ete of aenoe ate pias tg aN res, ds an ce Wore arcs) hl be fen ood end thet | have cartain information at my dlepesat inslcaliig that feishe* niay tave Leer involved in tha ‘eornmlasion of the: offenoeis). Lenquired tort the suspect whethar-Hefshe? undarstands Ihis alagalion, The aan [suspectlentoatad whatginsher dic, al ~ | | | ‘Sai abi or Suspect + Boies ents tapians Bare sie nd © J nforned the suspad as fofows: 18) Tho purpota ci this Intenview fa ts givo you the opportunity te meke a efeloment corcerning the allegations against you ssid 19 pet certain questions to. you concerning the allegations that you wate involved i the sommrisbion ofthe offence(s), 40) You have the fight to remaio silont throughout this inerviaw acl ase not compelled to make asyy steternact of Fo eviswes any questians, Any statement thet you make and anyting you say, wil be walter dowt and may be used as evidenca in a cxktt o fav. ShoLd yau peslay to mbake a staternani oro anower nussiions, suofratatervart oF arewora Wi bo submit to tho Attornsy General or pub prosecutor who wil take the cantons thereat Ino conslderation also fi desley whether s3 orossauts you. 0) You hes the right ter consutt. with Inga pracitfonor of your chuioe or. you preter to apply ta tie hegat il Bari to bo pravited wits he eerdces of a loge procttionaratsiekmenpente, The lege panting” of ut cholem or the ore provided fo you ky the Legal Ald Boer, may aio ber ponent during the mervig, (2) itis case ot » suspect who Is.@ child, you haw the righ. to have a parent. guerdan oF an agprogt te adlll present dering the titarviee, ‘Tr auspect axkomivecgedt thatderise* undarstondt these ts an the pursass oF tha interview. langquires fom he suspact whetter de/eher wished t oonselt with m fete) practioner (tavent cuerdian of appropriate adult oeinrewevete* decidge to make a slatament. Ths suspect Indicted. that Haslet — 469) wished ts conavit with a lege proationst of hisher* choles (ort the case. lw chia), & parent, ‘guardian or appropriate adult}: yom _RRSamALO-EpDLIO RE pride at shG eM iCet chr legatpARORSTU ete OKPOIELOE 8c} ditbnokwloh.te. eaneultalh.c- loyal prasttionen dparont-guaidtan-erasprapliate-aduly—belore-huldhoy Weule-deddale-make-actntemerh: snstrussious: * Daleta which fs noe apacable. A datana ust ve lial tp te deporte, suspect, expla sax ommvlscator a Orit {1a} oF) coins, cealono wih the rastol vs pacagcaph (2s xomon,dolate the rat of hi porgragh acct caret | de oon paragraph (8). AM coluns rust bite y te depend, susp, Menzrler eet Gmasron of Oats. | ipo ‘olciving steos wo provide talnat® ws the S i Bios inayat clowhe wa rca by ohn, Bi 3 han) ‘aigaut ofthe steve that 1... ape Wyner Athy ey fh et const legaprectioner, Lagat ENS3 SAPS BH 1 asked the sustéct whather belsha® wished to make & staereat in relation to the allegatierds) spain: bie ner, The suspect indicated inattelsiner — 5 ta ge? tb) weeenat ling tomate. aolsiomont; io) oui personnily 860, to the drawing up af the statement and would furnish me with te | stalananton saat Ae aS Sokat aoe. | oa een ocala atta peace | WS sey z, I . I I t Deteto amin 's act aypinaba, Alt deitcin mis? intakad ty tho depoann, suapee) interpreter anc eamissioaer ettamne. 1 iedomed the simpot that | wrt onflled to aske qusslions caiesining Taher afogeet fev pth ener ek ath cg ra Poy, ME Yaa ‘het testers anaes to the quastons wl he wren coin anc! eileen durtot tan Hurther intommad the suspect that hushe* has a sight 1p conn stl rene before answering any auedtons. | prevent 10 ask tha suspect gu ded ath Hoe quesars are answers terelp acd ateaahod 36 hes INSTAUETONS (3) Trae pétagraph paragraph (8}] must ho dotted t no qasietons wore cult the msnect, ® ithe suejectindiouled mat netehe wes nocwillng TEASE any qLeRtENY, NA Fe:Bal MS a FEGeGad Hrstily OM ancitog sugqa6t may thareattr rat be esked questions, Tip colvss, as wa ab any reason. avanced by hirer far ‘tha vehveal, eoust sco te weenntad-dracty baiow. @ tin eugpestrotssed to angwo: say ptgulnr queslizn, the quselge Tu be recorded 1 Anau Bas we oe sp a tha Bie auepect wehzand to anwar ita gacélin. Any resson cfr Dy fin auepae’ why tenia ives wal reuRBred io ena a purtioaas euesiion, rust aise he recording Wt Annouce B.a apa am md ‘Duiing the tnturview, iaeked the suspect whether savehe* iel# have any infsriag, RGSS asked the ousgest to chow mie the injuctes and I notiond the fallowing: ‘haease. injured. The suspect indlcotad’ that bnisho aids +L esled the euspect faa neck what helshe® had ausicinad this ities and be or she replad at tolows: Ei sem % Delite wi se ma. 3 ltrs eat be nl Py to Mcnent.Bispey marron ae Comoiands | of Cate. 2 tenn 1 asked ihe suspect € fashar wea In any way tectonmd, sascued oF intuenced 10 exerola the foregere options, Tha suapsat sketed thal-~ hedshem was nt traatened* easaulted* intluencad®; L ROD+ pefaher sar trostensdstansashadtinluanasdé inn fallewing moron | * Dato weve ct apoctle. A deen asl be adhd y ie capone Sed, eter ak Covamiaboae of Cathe. uring the interview —— (@* the svopett was snemingly ot sound rind and dle nut soar te berunder the hafluense of iqeior ov any olaer intoxicating substance or in a state af shack: (Oy tha-enepestwaescamingsenototepund. madsen seem edte-oumlertioanuense-otalenkeler othr PONS, -intoxicaning-aubslanseverin-cetaiectaneaite » Doleta which is not applaadte. All delatong ious bs Intalio’ hy the depostam, susie, Inlarpnotor and Ceromissionsr i oftams iatarer naan Snag ae6 ‘SKS 28 fm) | The inferdiew was intemptnd during the tine parade) und for tha oscane at out elows Istorruptions ! Mier. falewing won An LBisticr rgnia ms sotact in pmageape (0) ewe, bu At is end o! the Interview @yY iis staternent: Las) to sunpasth.ctetoment aasonsrevtys. aiid (o)* ~the-quactions ul thu suspeatemoware-tatianguudtions-(Aanatse B)— 2% Nas senddotincuaprclby tae a “wo ronutn-the-muspent ay the Imepareeryiagat proaltoneMianeepaHOr... AMS wawresd by hitmottthersaty, v3 ari bain confimed ths contents theredt b he a tras and corect roflastion of the intaryiew, 7 ete ate 00s wppbia it eos rast bs nil by Re aiponace, supe) Meeker ard Oomnksborer detate names}; The above statement wes made by ma at the place, date ail tina as indicatad: | enews arte sinterstangl the contents af this statement. * Lave: no abjeetian to taking the mosorbeet oath Ueonnicier the pratoribad oattyse nding an my eamgoignce. On. ayy? -Heapatian. aS oF aspoant Member: Sout Aticut Pops Sevog | sci that the deponent hos acknowledged that hefshe™ knows and understands the Comtenks of the atatcenane ‘wis as Som fairs” tehse he and the depsnants satus was oladod fescon ry rasan Signed aad sworn levsutemn BRR ERNE I RRHEATRSMRRICAE fe... SAEs ay of. oy EL WASSACHISETIS AVE AM ante, A BR. 2 SS AL Nh OO et a RENO. GE ERTAS, SEA ANS MSs: Capac, fen Business efdtess ... EMBASSY SE 0 Ares * Dolete which 's nel apelestia. oy Intorpreter oe6 SAPS 2m ARNEXURE A, STATEMENT SY SUSPECTy APS 3M fm) ParenvouaniianiAppmpdate aduuLega! Practkionera BAP 1 (0a ‘DAPSONE mt aa ‘hierprator sn ar at sass Boos Purort/dtuanianiApproprists ockavLeysl Fractitoner