OFFICE OF THE IDAC OVERSIGHT JUDGE CONFIRMS RECEIPT OF COMPLAINTS RELATING TO ADVOCATE ANDREA JOHNSON
The Office of the IDAC Oversight Judge confirms that it has received complaints relating to the Head of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), Advocate Andrea Johnson.
The Office does not ordinarily comment on complaints received or matters under consideration.
However, given the exceptional public interest in this matter, the numerous media enquiries received, and the fact that the existence of the complaints is already in the public domain, the Office considers it appropriate to confirm their receipt.
The complaints are receiving attention through the Office's established processes and are being assessed in accordance with its statutory mandate and the applicable legal framework.
The Office remains steadfast in its commitment to protecting whistleblowers and complainants who make disclosures in good faith.
The reporting of alleged corruption and misconduct is an essential feature of constitutional accountability and the rule of law.
The Office will take all reasonable measures within its mandate and the bounds of the law to ensure that individuals who raise concerns are not discouraged from doing so by fear of prejudice, intimidation, or retaliation.
The Office further places on record that there is no hard-and-fast rule regarding the protection or publication of the identity of persons against whom complaints have been lodged.
Whether such information is disclosed or remains confidential depends on the particular circumstances of each case, including considerations of public interest, procedural fairness, legality, the rights and interests of affected parties, and the integrity of the IDAC Oversight Judge Office's processes.
These considerations are carefully weighed and balanced on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Office's constitutional and statutory mandate.
The Office emphasises that the receipt of a complaint does not constitute a finding of wrongdoing, nor should it be interpreted as evidence of misconduct.
Every complaint is considered independently, objectively, and in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness.
To protect the integrity of the Office's processes and the rights of all concerned, the Office will not comment further on the substance of the complaints or any assessment or investigative steps that may or may not be undertaken while the matter remains under consideration.
@pule_jones
She claims not to understand her powers and has disowned IDAC decisions. How did we land here President @CyrilRamaphosa ? Someone with questionable character and incompetence, a deadly combination. @NPA_Prosecutes@News24
Ghana and Nigeria are being playful. Didn’t they promise their people mire flights from RSA? Now how do you leave your endangered people outside in the cold and exposed to the marauding RSA mobs baying for their blood only to go and cry at ECOWAS? Or what did I miss?
We did it Joe!
We successfully summited Mount Kilimanjaro!
This is by far the hardest thing I’ve ever done! By the grace of God, I reached Uhuru! Well done to @ImbumbaFoundat1 & the #Trek4Mandela team, for another incredible expedition! Thank you to all who supported the cause.
Promised more than a decade ago and built at a cost of R43m, the Ivory Park Swimming Pool Complex remains closed, with no official opening date announced.
https://t.co/yzMp0tfJjU
@tumisole People go there with lawyers and thinking they are going to protect them forgetting to consult relevant legal documents about the commission prior to avoid an embarrassment.
#CountryDuty#MadlangaCommission#AndreaJohnson#IDAC
Adv Sello SC: So, you’d agree with me that witnesses interviewed by IDAC can’t refuse to answer questions because they fear self-incrimination?
Does that mean those being interviewed by IDAC don’t have such rights? I.e., they’re compelled to answer despite hear of self-incrimination?
Adv Sello SC:
- Cites Con Court case on this principle and says witnesses have right not to self-incriminate.
- Therefore Adv Johnson can’t invoke section 35 of the constitution as she’s not an accused person. She therefore has to respond.
- allows Adv Johnson to consider overnight.
Commissioner Baloyi:
- Please also consider the Commission’s regulations on self- incrimination.
Johnson Legal Rep:
- Rules of the Commission applies and she has to answer.
I cannot believe the head of IDAC want to invoke the right not to incriminate herself. Whilst it is her Constitutional Right which must be protected, for me it is more about the message she sends out. How can you incriminate yourself if you have not done anything wrong. It sends out the wrong message. I think it will be best if she resigns. She can say it is to preserve the credibility of IDAC and should not be construed as an admission of guilt. At the moment she is talking IDAC and the NPA down with her.