COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO STATE CAPTURE
HELD AT
PARKTOWN, JOHANNESBURG

28 SEPTEMBER 2018

DAY 17

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 28 SEPTEMBER 2018
CHAIRPERSON: Good morning Ms Hofmeyr and everybody.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Good morning, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We adjourned yesterday on the basis that we would continue this
morning with this application and you obviously had time to reflect on some of the
issues we discussed – are you ready to say something.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed Chair, thank you so much. Chair we ended
yesterday on the question broadly of relevance and I would like to propose addressing
that in three parts. The first… [intervenes]
10

CHAIRPERSON: Well – well let me tell you what my thinking was at some stage last
evening about the matter.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We have to keep on going back to the basic proposition that this is
not a court of law. We have to keep on reminding ourselves.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed.
CHAIRPERSON: And that is all of us – both the lawyers and myself because are all
too used to a court of law.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed.
CHAIRPERSON: And our experience in courts of law is to a really large extent part

20

of our life. But of course once we remind ourselves that this is not a court law. We
have got to try and think in the context of a forum that is not a court of law and to a
certain extent we have also to think of terminology that is not a court of law
terminology, because sometimes we may be using court of law terminology because
that is what we work with all the time but actually maybe we should be considerate
different terminology, depending on exactly what we mean and what we want to

Page 1 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

achieve. Now, this is a Commission of Inquiry. It has got a team of investigators and a
team of lawyers the contemplation is that the investigators would investigate and bring
the product of their investigation to the Commission’s Legal Team and the omission’s
Legal Team would look at that product and advise if it is good enough to be presented
to a hearing and if it needs to be worked on further they give that advise at a certain
stage they might be happy to present it to the hearing. Now when you investigate an
investigator may go to destination A for purposes of investigating and at that
destination he or she might come across certain real evidence and might need to
examine that real evidence before he or she may say whether it is really going to be
10

useful for a hearing or to be taken to the legal team and so on or he or she might need
to go and interview certain other people before he or she takes a view whether it is
something worth handing over to the legal team.
So, for purposes of investigation and if there is still going to be an investigation
it might be difficult to say whether something is relevant. Maybe it might be enough if
it is potentially relevant and whether it is in fact relevant might be established after
some further investigation or some examinations, some analysis, so it may well be
that the components of the – of HDDH whether 1 or 2 or both, it may well be that the
components thereof that has not been analysed need not be shown to be relevant at
this stage and that it should be enough if one takes the view that it could be potentially

20

relevant or something like that and maybe to that extent one should not – maybe I
should not ask for more than simply a showing that it could potentially be relevant. So,
that is the one part, but when I read the affidavit again this morning it seemed to me
that real reason or purpose of the application at least then that one could gather from
the affidavit it seems to be that it is believed that there must be an admission of this
evidence first before or in order to enable investigators to analyse the data and do

Page 2 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

their investigation further and at the same stage the evidence would come back after
they have done that. Now ordinarily in a court of law situation things would happen the
other way around.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: The examination of evidence and or real evidence or objects would
be done first and the court is asked to admit that evidence it would be because that
part has been done as far the particular party who wants that piece of evidence to be
admitted is concerned they have done their job and when you it is admitted it is the
court and so on. So, but here it seems to me that what is envisaged is something that
10

is different an admission is sought and then investigation or analysis later and it is not
clear from the affidavit why that need – that has to be so, but as I said yesterday the
hard drives or the forensic images thereof of HDDA are under the control of the
Commission and as far as I am concerned I know nothing that should preclude the
investigators from doing their job in relation to that piece of evidence and at a certain
stage, I mean we have certain evidence from Mr Brian Currin, from yesterday, about
what you call, I think “chain of custody” it is not everything that is still, there are other
parts that are dealt with as I understand in an affidavit that is to be handed up to me
and I suspect that evidence of the whistle blowers or at least one of them in relation
to how, originally, HDDA was - came to his possession is something that will be dealt

20

with at some stage when those whistle blower are able to give evidence, either in
open, in an open hearing or in camera. My suspicion is that at that stage that will
give a complete picture about the chain of custody.
Now, I do not – obviously one would have preferred a situation where the chain of
custody would be completed now, but I do not have a problem with the fact that it is
not completed now. It will be addressed in due course. I do not see anything that

Page 3 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

really precludes either the legal team or the investigators to do what they need to do
using this evidence to advance the work of the Commission and - So, that is where
I am…
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed.
CHAIRPERSON: And it may well be that part of the challenge that we all face is what
I said earlier on. We are used to a court of law situation, court of law terminology and
court of law procedures and I mean there is no requirement that the Chairperson of a
Commission of Inquiry must always be a judge. There is no requirement that he or she
must always be a lawyer. So, that this Commission may well have been chaired by
10

somebody other a judge or a lawyer of course a judge comes with certain advantages,
but as I say maybe sometimes they are disadvantages. So, I do not know whether,
for example if it was somebody who was not a lawyer you would bring an application
for admission – for an admission.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed.
CHAIRPERSON: So, I am sharing this – these thoughts with you so that you
understand some of the thoughts that I had, because I also reflected on the
application. So, one, as far as I am concerned, the evidence is within the control of
the Commission. Two the evidence appears to be very important. Three there is no
reason, as far as I can see, you might give me one. I see no reason why the

20

investigators should not do their work using this information, analyse the data and
move on with the investigation and at the right time the matter could – they would
obviously compare to the legality and say this is how far we are going. This is what
appears to be the case and the legal team would at the right time, you know, bring the
evidence or aspects of it back to a hearing and then one can deal with it. It may well
be that to the extent that one may need to talk about admission of evidence even in a

Page 4 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

forum that is not a court of law – to the extent that one may talk about that kind of
terminology. It may well be that that should stand over until I have had all the evidence
that might be relevant to authenticity and other things and I would decide, you know,
admissibility later, but in the meantime I see no reason, for example if a witness was
giving evidence here and the legal team being aware of certain emails implicating that
person. I see no reason why, for example that witness could not be asked about such
an email, for example and obviously any witness who has an interest in relation and it
was implicated by the emails who wants to challenge the authenticity of the emails
should be allowed to do so – at a certain stage I would make that decision and it might
10

not be necessary to make it a certain time. I might wish to make it right at the end, but
subject to what anybody might say – I do not see why there should be any problem
with the legal and investigators pursuing their work to advance the work of the
Commission, even in relation to using that – that data.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Thank you Chair. Chair, we greatly appreciate your
guidance on these aspects. If I may pick up the point about terminology, because I
think it is an important one and you have already signalled the need for everyone
concerned to remain on the right side of the distinction between courts and inquiries
and our reflection overnight as a legal team. I indicated to us that the language that
was selected for the Notice of Motion, for precisely the reasons that you have

20

identified, may not have been [indistinct]. The Notice of Motion talks about admitting
the data and the challenge with that is that it holds a whole host of connotations from
a judicial forum that brings in questions of rules of evidence, on admissibility that are,
quite frankly, inappropriate here, because that is not the standard or the test here and
Chair, it was with that reflection that we went back to the rules of this commission
which we submit in fact provide the guidance. 6.1 of the rules does not talk about

Page 5 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

admitting evidence. It talks and we think with wisdom, with respect, about recei ving
evidence – receiving does not have any of the loaded connotations that admission
does. Admission takes us back into a judicial setting – we should resist that as a
Commission of Inquiry. That is our submission and so the first proposal that we would
like to make in relation to the application is that if we go to the Notice of Motion we
submit it is actually appropriate for the Notice of Motion to read in paragraphs 1 and 2
- Not that what is sought is a ruling admitting the data, but receiving the data, because
that tracks the rule 6.1 and it makes clear what the test was that was then applied,
because 6.1 says simply that the Commission and I am quoting now:
10

“may receive any evidence that is relevant to its
mandate..”
and I would like to pause on “mandate”, because it is again important when we are
mindful of this distinction to understand that the mandate of a Commission of Inquiry
is to investigate matters. It is not to determine legal rights. It is not to determine guilt
or innocence. It is simply to investigate and upon completion of the investigation to
make recommendations. So, that again gives us an insight as to what receiving
evidence means. It does not mean receive evidence in order to determine rights which
is actually what “admission” in a judicial context will carry as its significance. It simply
means receive evidence that is relevant to the investigation that the Commission is

20

doing and which will result, in the end, in its recommendations.
So, Chair our first proposal to you today would be to remove the language of
admission, it is with hindsight unhelpful, it takes us back to the judicial setting that
we must studiously avoid venturing to and it clarifies what is being sought. It is
simply a receipt by this Commission of that information to progress its investigations.

Page 6 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

Chair, I would like to link that to the guidance that at least one of the cases that was
handed up to you yesterday provides on this question. It is the case of Rosby Costigan
that was in the bundle of authorities and here the reason why we give further attention
to this authority is because it actually provides very useful guidance in addition to what
I addressed yesterday.
On this question of where can a Commission probe and what evidence may it receive
in the course of its investigations – before I take you to the relevant paragraphs I
should just give a bit of background about the case. This was a case involving a
Commission of Inquiry in Australia into the building – Shipbuilding and Ship Preparing
10

Unions within Victoria and New South Wales. A Commission was established to
determine whether any officer or member of those unions had been engaged in illegal
activities related to shipping and so the Commission began its work and in the course
of its works counsel for the submissions had discovered that there was a possibility of
involvement by employees of the various companies in tax minimisation schemes and
on its face it looked as though those tax minimisation schemes were beyond the remits
and mandate of the Commission. But counsel for the Commission sought leave from
the Commissioner to pursue that line of inquiry and indeed to summon witnesses that
would be able to give further information on the question of the involvement in this tax
minimisation scheme which may indicate engagement in unlawful activities and those

20

who were going to be summoned and implicated by that line of enquiry ran to court to
try and stop the Commission in its tracks on the grounds that this would be beyond its
mandate and Chair in dealing with that challenge. If you go to paginated page 17, of
the bundle, the authorities bundle. You will see there on the left hand side of the page
on the reported page 326 – what the court is recording there is the reaction of the
Commissioner when this issue was first raised with him and I would like us to look at

Page 7 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

that and then look later at what the court made of the Commissioner’s findings,
because the court ultimately upholds the Commissioner’s determination that the leave
should be granted. The witnesses should be summoned and the investigation should
proceed. From about the fourth line down on that page – this is what the Commissioner
recorded in his reasons. He said:
“In an inquiry of this kind it is impossible to lay down, in
advance, the limits of investigation and yet this is what
the submission made to me would require me to do. Is
not one view of the evidence that the payment made to a
10

painter and docker company director came to him at least
indirectly from a taxpayer. At the very least I am not –
am I not bound to inquire into this matter if the evidence
should disclose that a taxpayer even knew or ought to
have known that his tax was being minimised by the use
of painters and dockers as company directors. Am I not
obliged to inquire as to whether this falls within the
concept of the use of the union for illegal activities.”
That is a quote from the terms of reference.
“I am not making any findings on these matters at this

20

stage and will not until the evidence is complete and
submission have been advanced on that evidence by
those who wish to make them. But it is not possible to
limit my inquiries into those areas by producing a
conclusion midway through those inquiries.”

Page 8 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

Chair, that finding on the part of the Commission is ultimately upheld by the court and
the test that the court sets is, in our submission, a useful one for your consideration of
this application and Chair that appears on paginated page 21. It is on the reported
page 335, which is on the right hand side of the page and against line 18 it begins.
This is where the court having upheld the Commissioner’s determination that the
investigation should proceed really articulates the essence of the question. There the
court says:
“If there is a real as distinct from a fanciful possibility
directly or even indirectly relevant to the matters which
10

the Commission is required to investigate under its
letters patent. Such a line of questioning should, in my
opinion, be treated as relevant to the inquiry.”
Chair we seek to emphasise there a few things. The test is set at the level of possibility
– which is even lower, that probability – Sorry I seem to have turned off my
microphone. I will address in due course about the probabilities in this evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Well that – that seems to either be a similar or the same or close to
potentially relevant …[intervenes]
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed
CHAIRPERSON: That I mentioned a while ago.

20

ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed Chair. The investigation should not be stopped at
any point, unless as we read the standard here it would be fanciful to proceed down
that line of inquiry. If it is not fanciful. If it is possibly relevant or potentially relevant,
either directly or indirectly, says the case, well then it should be pursued. So, Chair we
submit that with that fairly minor adjustment to the Notice of Motion – We actually
achieve quite a lot, because we seek to clarify before you today – that we are not

Page 9 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

seeking, in this application, admission of the data in the formal sense that that word
has in a judicial context. We are seeking simply its receipt because from what is set
out in the affidavit and I will take you to just the highlights of it, together with Mr Currin’s
evidence. It is quite clearly not fanciful that this is a line of investigation that m ust be
pursued.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja. No, no you want me to address you on whether it is fanciful or
not.
[Laughing]
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: I will not be. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Chair let me
10

then just move to the question of “potentially relevant” because it may be useful to use
that as the place holder for what this Commission is tasked with doing in the face of
this application.
Chair we submit that there are at least two primary indicators of the potential relevance
of the HDDH Data which we seek to have received by this Commission.
The first is that it is data that comes from a hard drive, from Sahara Computers. That
on its face, Chair places it squarely within the line of sight of the mandate of this
Commission and we say that because Sahara Computers is a Gupta owned company,
or was at least. It is one of the companies that the four major banking institution, of
this country, severed ties with at the beginning of 2016. It is also the company, that in

20

the evidence of Ms Mentor she was taken to in advance of the meeting with the former
president at the Saxonwold residence of the Guptas. Sahara Computers is squarely
within the mandate of the terms of reference of this Commission and the Commission
has within its possession a hard drive from that company.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja. Now, I think certainly no order have got to be made that should
preclude investigators from saying “let us have a look.”

Page 10 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So, I think the potentially relevant is quite clear… [intervenes]
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: It is manifest, Chair. We would submit.
CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me that with the amendment that you propose of not
using the terminology of “admission” and using the “receiving” – there should be no
problem with, subject to certain amendments such as in one, I do not think we need
to mention the name of the Commission, because ….
[Laughing]
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: All right.
10

CHAIRPERSON: It is the Commission doing the …
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed.
[Laughing]
CHAIRPERSON: Making the decision.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed.
CHAIRPERSON: So, such as that 1 and 2 there should not be a problem. With regard
to 3. I do not know whether a rule nisi is the best form and of course as I have just
said a few minutes ago what we know best is what happens in a court of law.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: So from time to time we are to go back to – what happens there,

20

but we must immediately remember to get out.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed and do it un-quickly.
[Laughing]
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we have because if we stay there too long we will make
mistakes.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed.

Page 11 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

CHAIRPERSON: I mean in a trial all you would have would be a judge or magistrate
saying exhibit and so is provisionally admitted.. I will make a final decision later. It may
wel be that the rule nisi is the right form. I am just raising it..
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But I think the basic principle is that, as long as whoever maybe
affected may, has an opportunity to be heard before a final decision is made, but it
may also be that to the extent that we no longer use the word the terminology of
“admission” and simply saying “receipt” – it may well be that that does not affect
anybody’s rights or interest I am not sure, but I am quite happy to say whoever wishes
10

to be heard, at some stage before a final decision is made as to whether to admit or
not, you know will be heard.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed. Chair if I may address that in two parts. You
probed earlier with me the question of the purpose behind this application and it is
important in that context to make one submission that is related to this latest
engagement. This Commission is a public inquiry. It was therefore appropriate we
submit and in the interests of the transparency of the processes of this Commission
that when it was possible for this Commission to make known to the public that its
investigators and legal team had possession of this data and linked with that the
extreme lengths that the Commission went to in order to secure the integrity of the

20

data and to have it recovered by an international expert, that those facts be made
known to the public, because there may well be people who are implicated by that
information and so part of the purpose of bringing this now and not later was in the
interests of that transparency – tell the public this is what we have. This is what will be
analyzed and which will forge our investigations forward and so in that context it may
well be sufficient merely that the application has been brought and that if the ruling is

Page 12 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

receipt of the evidence then in due course notice in a sense has been given, publicly,
to all those who may wish to contend that something inauthentic or some particular
piece of that information is not relevant. So, in response directly to your question about
paragraph3. We submit it may not be necessary this application has taken care of the
general public notice that this information will be worked on and will be presented in
due course where it is appropriate and pertinent to the matters of investigation, either
in the leading of evidence or in the cross-examination of witnesses and the rules of
this Commission of course permits applications to be made on 7 days notice and so
an appropriate person if that person wishes to make submissions in relation to the
10

receipt of this evidence, could certainly do so. This will serve as the public notice for
that purpose.
CHAIRPERSON: And would it be fine to, even the receipt to, make it provisional?
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Chair…
CHAIRPERSON: You know in terms of admission we are talking of provisional
because there would be a final decision later. Of course admission and receipt are
different things but it may be that if one say it is provisional it just sends the message
that anyone who even may be saying no, it should not be received – not or is closed,
they can come and make whatever argument and final decisions would be taken later
on.. It may or may not be that is necessary to say it is provisional. I do not why what

20

to say …[intervenes]
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Chair we submit it is not necessary to say that is
provisional and the reason for that is really the guidance that we can again seek from
form the Australian case. Investigations move – Commissions of Inquiry move along
lines of pursuit and it is not appropriate, at any point, to make a definitive finding as to
what weight will be given to or what importance will be attached to a particular piece

Page 13 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

of evidence. What will happen now if this ruling is granted is that the Commission is
receiving this evidence…
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: And it is receiving it [intervenes]
CHAIRPERSON: Factually receiving.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed. Factually so and so that the processes of
investigation can be advanced.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Through analysis and later presentations. So, we would
10

submit – confining it to a provisional status would not be appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON: I guess that it is just what we keep on doing, because when we
were talking about admission…
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: It was necessary to talk about provisional.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Yes, indeed. But we are not there.
CHAIRPERSON: We are now moving - moving and of course we are bound think how
much of what we had in mind, in relation to admission we must retain when we say
receipt, you know…
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Chair, our submission is…

20

CHAIRPERSON: So, maybe to the extent that receipt is nothing more than factually
receive.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Mmh.
CHAIRPERSON: That fact is not going to change…
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed.

Page 14 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

CHAIRPERSON: And that order would not be precluding anybody at any stage to say
– I am not talking about receipt, I am now talking about admission. It should not be
admitted that that remains open.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: It does Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: And that is precisely why we thought or be it a small
change it is an important change to the manner in which the ruling would read. We do
not believe it needs to be circumscribed by provisional, for all the reasons that you
have given, Chair, with respect and also to resist that movement back to the judicial
10

frame. It is not appropriate. This Commission can receive any evidence relevant to its
mandate. This data is clearly that and should – so the ruling should be given and they
will be given we submit on notice to all who may in due course want to challenge a
piece of that information.
CHAIRPERSON: I am ready to – is it make an order? Seeing that is where - make
some ruling. Well in the end maybe whatever you call it, it would be an order…
[Laughing]
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed a ruling.
CHAIRPERSON: I am ready to do so, but I would probably effect some more
amendments on your Notice of Motion.

20

ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: But once that – I do not think you would have any problem with…
[intervenes]
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Chair, that is ideal. If I may just mention the in camera
affidavit. We do still need to present that to you and I wonder if it is maybe an
opportune time to take an adjournment now – so that that can be done?

Page 15 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018
ebk

ADDRESS

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let us do that. Well maybe we may as well this time for tea.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: For the tea break and then when we come back – we finalise.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Thank you Chair. We are in your hands.
CHAIRPERSON: It is quarter to 11. That affidavit of course I do not have an idea how
it is. So, how long I might…
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: It is very short. Thankfully.
CHAIRPERSON: It is very short. Okay, so we can do within 15 minute? I should be
able to?
10

ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Indeed.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. All right or maybe just to be on the safe side we say we will
resume at five past 11.
ADV KATE HOFMEYR SC: Certainly chair.
COURT CLERK: All rise.
HEARING ADJOURN [1045]
CHAIRPERSON:

HEARING RESUME [11:05]

I have read the affidavit, is there anything more that either

Mr Pretorius or Ms Hofmeyr wants to say?
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: No Mr Chair, those are our submissions and we kindly
request that you take them into account in fashioning the order that you wish to with
20

those amendments that we have submitted are appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Having read the papers and heard argument and having
also read an affidavit given to me in chambers in confidence in support of the

Page 16 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018

RULING

rm
application, I make the following Order/Ruling. I am going to leave out “admitting” at
the beginning and put it a little later.
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON:
1. The data referred to as “the HDDH Data” on a hard drive (with model number
ST500DM009 and serial number Z9ADLVFT) referred to as “HDDH”. You had “is”,
I think, should it not be “are”?
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: Is received by.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it “is data”, “is”, or data “are”?
10

ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the correct English?
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: The data “is” received, I presume.
CHAIRPERSON: Is received, okay alright, is received as evidence before this
Commission. That is 1. You got it right or must I repeat? Have you got it?
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: I have it Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: I will just say again:
1. The data referred to as the “HDDH Data” on a hard drive (with model number
ST500DM009 and serial number Z9ADLVFT) referred to as “HDDH” is received
as evidence before this Commission.

20

2. The data referred to as the “HDDH1 Data” and “HDDA2 Data” which has been
forensically imaged from HDDH onto two further hard drives referred to as
“HDDH1” (with model number WD10EZEX-60WN4A0 and serial number
WCC6Y0RRVNTJ) and “HDDH2” (with model number WD10EZEX-60WN4A0 and
serial number WCC6Y6HRFZHX) is received as evidence before this Commission.
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: Chair, may I interrupt?
Page 17 of 21

DAY 18, 28 September 2018

RULING

rm
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: In the serial number in the last bracket, you mentioned
Z instead of 7 as the third last.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay let me correct that. In the Order or Ruling under 2, the serial
number is the following: WCC6Y6HRF7HX, okay. And then, the original 3 is not
pursued so the new 3 will be the old 4 but it will read as follows:
3. Notwithstanding the Rulings/Orders in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, nobody outside
of the Commission, shall have access to the HDDH Data, HDDH1 Data and
HDDH2 Data, until it is presented by the legal team of the Commission at a public
10

hearing of the Commission.
I think I should add 4 to say and I am going to formulate it and you can say if you
would like to make submissions about whether we should have it or not.
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: As you please Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: 4. Should any specific person or party wish to have access to HDDH
Data, HDDH1 Data and HDDH2 Data before the time specified in 3 above,
the leave of this Commission will be required.
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: Maybe “sought”?
CHAIRPERSON:

…will be or such person must first obtain the leave of this

Commission. I think this is just to cater for maybe specific individuals who part with
20

that might feel that they need to maybe somebody who, if there is any reason, just to
leave it open. What is your attitude?
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: It’s appropriate with respect Chair, may I suggest the
wording should read: “should any person or party wish to have access to data, leave
may be sought from the Commission.”

Page 18 of 21

DAY 17, 27 SEPTEMBER 2018

POSTPONEMENT

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, 4 will then read: Should any party wish to have access to HDDH
Data, HDDH1 Data and HDDH2 Data, leave must be sought from the Commission.
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: Or “prior to the date mentioned in 3, leave may be
sought from the Commission.”
CHAIRPERSON: Leave…okay, let me formulate it finally. That is 4 now: Should any
party wish to have access to HDDH Data, HDDH1 Data and HDDH2 Data at any time
prior to the time indicated in paragraph 3 above, such party shall first seek the leave
of this Commission.
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: That’s appropriate, thank you Chair.
10

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. That is the ruling order in the application. I guess that
at this stage, I don’t know if you wish to say anything about next week?
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: Well, for present purposes, although this is subject to
change, if witnesses are able to come earlier than originally planned but what is certain
is that on the 3 rd October there will be evidence from Minister Nene.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Okay, we will then adjourn on the basis that unless notification
to the contrary is made or given publicly, the Commission will resume on the 3 rd
October to then hear the evidence of Minister Nene but should circumstances arise
which require the Commission to sit earlier, the public will be informed.
ADV PAUL PRETORIUS SC: Thank you Chair.

20

CHAIRPERSON: We adjourn.
HEARING POSTPONED UNTIL 3 OCTOBER 2018
HEARING ADJOURN

[11:30]

Page 19 of 21

DAY 17, 27 SEPTEMBER 2018

POSTPONEMENT

TRANSCRIBER’S CERTIFICATE FOR COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
INTO STATE CAPTURE
HELD AT
PARKTOWN, JOHANNESBURG

DATE HELD

: 2018-09-28

DAY:

: 18

TRANSCRIBERS

: E. KOEKEMOER, E. BOUWER, C.SWART

10
Audio’s are typed verbatim, as far as audible/possible

Page 20 of 21