General comments:

Insofar any allegations of impropriety attributed to me and

a specific SARS unit as reflected in the complaint - they are
denied emphatically.
The balance of the allegations are not new to me and I
have made most of these facts, together with additional aspects
not reflected therein available to the South African Revenue
Service (SARS), the so-called Kanyane- and Sikhakhane panels,
the Hawks and the Inspector-General of Intelligence in 2014 and
2015. I did so again in 2016, including to the South African
Police Service (SAPS) and Public Protector. I must assume, that
if the so-called Kroon board and KPMG "documentary review"
conducted their processes with diligence, they would have had
access to these too. I have always found it perplexing that none
of these "panels" ever reflected on any of the very serious
allegations reflected in this complaint.
I have always maintained, and remain of the view, that at
least the initial attack against SARS and me (which commenced
on 28 May 2014 onwards) emanated from persons associated
with the tobacco industry, and that their motive was precisely
intended to quash the sort of evidence that is now coming out. I
have consistently denied any wrongdoing on my part and
maintain that the allegations directed at SARS and me were
supported by persons associated with the so-called Tobacco
Task Team and others in the industry - all who stood everything

to gain, and nothing to lose by smearing us and effectively

diverting attention away from thr evidence we uncovered about
their own wrongdoings. In this regard I can refer to an incident
in January 2014 where some officials were actively going
around looking for "dirt" on me. This was formally reported to
the Hawks at the time. One has to ask why, if we were serving
the common interests of the state, a SAPS Crime Intelligence
would go around asking people for "dirt" on me, if not to seek
ways and means to deliberatly discredit me.
Ironically, the key themes that were falsely attributed to
the SARS unit, such as that they had supposedly illegally
entered premises, planted tracking devices, had access to
millions in funding, bought sophisticated "spy equipment", set
out to destroy careers of state officials, used covert cameras to
spy on people, intercepted communications, illegal surveillance
and so forth - happen to be precisely evidenced in what I have
always advanced were attributable to certain persons associated
with the Tobacco Task Team and their private partners. If ever
I've seen evidence of an illegal and unlawful intelligence
structure and rogue covert units, the evidence in this complaint
would be a case in point. The scale, sophistication and
magnitude of these activities speak for themselves. I would
welcome any investigation by law enforcement agencies that
will hopefully finally bring these matters, which have been
swept under the carpet for far too long, to the fore. The Hawks,

State Security Agency, SARS and SAPS have all received my

offers to assist and cooperate with them in this regard, every
year since 2014.
As I have said before, if the Hawks and NPA conduct their
investigations properly and as they should, the truth behind the
attack on SARS and me (and which eventually drew in a small
investigative capacity into the saga) will ultimately see daylight.
The reality is that that in late 2013 we had cottoned onto these
illegal, improper and unlawful activities and those implicated
soon came to know this and did everything possible to suppress
and hide the true facts since then.
I specifically wish to respond to particular aspects
contained in the complaint:
In re paragraph 2.14.6: I deny that any SARS investigator
of any unit which served under me during my tenure at SARS
was a permanent part of the Tobacco Task Team. In fact in 2013
I had given written instructions to all staff (that reported to me)
that none were allowed to participate in meetings with this task
team, especially where private companies were participating in
their investigations. My misgivings of this task team has been
public record for a very long time now. I have set out my
reasons for my stance insofar this task team to SARS and later
in 2014 to the so-called Sikhakane Panel. I must therefore
assume that the later so-called Kroon board and KPMG would
logically also have had access thereto. It's a pity that none of

these panels considered any of these facts material to their

"findings". If indeed SARS officials participated with this task
team, I was unaware of such and it would have been contrary to
instructions. I have subsequently seen evidence which appear to
implicate two SARS officials in the alleged illegal entry of a
private premises and placement of a tracker device on a truck
there in 2013. Neither of these two officials were reporting to
me at the time. They were not members of the High-risk
Investigations unit either. From my point of view they would
have to account to SARS and their own line-managers as to their
knowledge of these activities, their alleged involvement and
why they allegedly sought to conceal this from SARS and the
various "panels". It's a pity that none of the SARS "panels"
considered any of these facts material to their "findings".
In re paragraph 34: Ms Walter in fact recorded two
seperate conversations between herself and an employee of
British American Tobacco United Kingdom Plc. The context to
this was that, at the time, Ms Walter sought private advice from
me as to how to obtain specific records she required from them
for her personal use. This advice followed her expressed
frustration to me that British American Tobacco United
Kingdom Plc did not want to provide anything to her in writing
despite her requests to them for such. There was nothing
untoward in me providing her this advice. I might add that she
allowed me to make copies of both these conversations, which I

had later provided to SARS, the Inspector-General of

Intelligence and the so-called Sikhakane Panel. Again, I must
therefore assume that the later so-called Kroon board and
KPMG would logically also have had access thereto. And again,
it's a pity that none of these "panels" considered any of these
facts material to their "findings". The fact that Ms Walter at this
time made these recordings herself also flies in the face on her
later allegations that I and/or SARS had been intercepting her
communications. I was not present when she made the
recordings.
In re paragraph 36: It is factually incorrect that Ms Walter
texted me on the stipulated date and time-frame. She only
initiated informal interactions with me via text in the week
preceding 25 October 2013, almost two months after our first
meering. At that point in time I knew nothing of her and she
presented herself to me only as chairperson of FITA and lawyer
who specialised in family and matrimonial law, patents and
trademarks. As an aside, it was conceded by Ms Walter in
another matter before the Gauteng High Court in 2015, that
contrary to the Sikhakhane panel's "finding" (that I attended this
first meeting alone and therefore contrary to SARS rules) I was
actually accompanied by another SARS manager. This only
serves as a small example of the many factual errors in that
report. Because I was denied my most basic human right of
reply by the panel, I was never able to correct any of the myriad

of factual errors in that report.

In re paragraph 37: I ended the relationship with Ms
Walter on 13 May 2014 and not on 27 May 2014 as stated in the
complaint. I last saw her some days preceding 13 May 2014.
What I came to know about Ms Walter from November 2013
onwards until then, transpired over a period of time and was to a
very limited extent dependent on what she chose to reveal to me
or not within the confines of the relationship. Among the
reasons why I terminated the relationship were precisely aspects
I slowly came to know of and which made me very
uncomfortable. I had by then serious doubts about Ms Walter's
honesty to me on certain matters and her motive for pursuing the
relationship to begin with. Throughout, I had very limited
knowledge as to Ms Walter's relations with respect to British
American Tobacco United Kingdom Plc and the so-called
Tobacco Task Team and only came to discover more facts in
greater detail from June 2014 onwards until quite recently. And
again, it's a pity that none of the SARS "panels" considered any
of these facts material to their "findings".
In re paragraph 41: On 28 May 2014, in reply to an email
(dated 27 May 2014) from me to Ms Walter informing her of
media enquiries regarding us and how I intended to respond
should I be asked for comment, Ms Walter made numerous false
and slanderous allegations against me and questioned my fitness
for office. She copied in multiple senior managers at SARS at

the time. Significantly she made no mention whatsoever of any

SARS unit at that point in time and the suggestion that she did
so in May 2014 as stated in this paragraph is incorrect. This is
evident from the formal scope and mandate that informed the
so-called Kanyane Panel at the time, and the even later so-called
Sikhakane Panel. Neither of these panels were ever tasked to
investigate any SARS unit whatsoever. The Kanyane panel,
with all its factual and legal shortcomings, in any event
concluded that the allegations against me were unsubstantiated.
The Sikhakhane Panel which commenced in September 2014
and concluded it's report on 5 November 2014 on its own
version states that it considered a specific unit at SARS only
after allegations about it had featured in the media. In this regard
it is significant to point out that the first article about the unit
only appeared in the Sunday Times on 12 October 2014 under
the headline "SARS bugged Zuma". This means the Sikhakhane
panel only took it upon itself to consider the unit from that date
onwards. On their own versions, both the panels didn't afford
me a proper hearing (in fact the Kanyane panel didn't hear me at
all), nor did they afford me a right of reply to their "findings".
The justification of the Sikhakhane Panel as to why they didn't
hear me on these matters was "because by the time the
newspaper articles came about in October 2014 they had already
interviewed me". I have on numerous occasions stated on record
that both panels' findings are profoundly flawed in fact and law.

The allegations about illegal interceptions of communications

are categorically denied. In any event, despite the material flaws
of the Kanyane Panel, the later Sikhakhane Panel, the Kroon
board and KPMG "probe", none found any evidence in support
of the allegation that Ms Walter or any other taxpayer's
communications were intercepted by SARS and/or the unit
and/or I. I have explained before that this belief existed in the
minds of Ms Walter and others as is evident in texts she first
advanced to me from 14 November 2013 onwards, and I simply
didn't correct this belief up to a certain point in time. I have also
explained that, despite her public denials to this effect, Ms
Walter caused me to be in possession of data emanating from
three of her older handsets and a data cloud. The content of this
data confirms and supports virtually all that is alleged in this
complaint. It has always been my contention that for this reason,
this data had to be discredited at all cost, because it implicates
persons in the Tobacco Task Team. Once again, it's a pity that
none of the SARS "panels" considered any of these facts
material to their "findings".
In re paragraph 43: See my response above in respect of
paragraph 41. I categorically deny that Ms Walter or anybody
else's communications were ever intercepted by SARS.
Furthermore, I had discussed this belief with Mr Adriano
Mazzotti of Carnilinx and we exchanged texts to this effect in
late 2014. In these exchanges it is clear that he and Carnilinx

accepted my assurances that these allegations were untrue. I had

similar discussions with their legal representatives who accepted
my assurances. Insofar the allegation that Ms Walter had
"known of" or "been aware" of the SARS unit in question, I
emphatically deny this. I had never discussed this unit with her
at any time. It is however my belief that she may have become
aware of the unit and older allegations about the unit by way of
her interactions with a former SARS official, Mr Michael Peega
and a SAPS Crime Intelligence member of the so-called
Tobacco Task Team and particular persons in the tobacco
industry. I do not wish to elaborate on the facts that inform my
view in this regard at this stage. It is well recorded in public that
Mr Peega had, since leaving the employ of SARS in 2009,
worked in various investigative/informant roles for various
private businesses in the tobacco industry over the years, until as
recently as 2015. In late 2009 and early 2010, Mr Peega had
made similar allegations about the SARS unit by way of an
"anonymous dossier" which he titled "Operation Snowman"
which was widely reported on in the media at the time. SARS
refuted this document publicly in late 2009 and early 2010 in a
detailed bundle of documents and a line-by-line refutation
thereof. I believe it no coincidence that Ms Walter, Mr Peega
and Lt Colonel Hennie Niemann appeared on Carte Blanche in
February 2015 in an insert which contained the most ludicrous
allegations imaginable about the SARS unit. And again, it's a

pity that none of the SARS "panels" considered any of these

facts material to their "findings".
In re paragraph 45: If indeed Ms Walter made such
allegations, I categorically deny them. As a fact, when she
disclosed certain aspects to me of her interactions with the
Tobacco Task Team (which turned out to be very limited at that
stage), I offered to her to arrange for her to sit with two law
enforcement officials to hear her story and take down an
affidavit. To this offer, she replied that she sought certain
"assurances" from law enforcement agencies in the United
Kingdom and South Africa, which was something I was unable
to provide her. In the result, my offer to her was never seen
through by her and she never sat with the law enforcement
officials. Ms Walter's engagement with the media was initiated
by her, seen through by her and with the express understanding
that I couldn't be involved. Numerous text exchanges between
us confirm the aforesaid and reflect how she told me "the time
was right to meet" the media, how she sought to "redeem"
herself by making public what she claimed to be unethical and
illegal conduct on the part of certain persons in the Tobacco
Task Team and associated private businesses, and then
ultimately what she disclosed to the media. I have also read the
articles which I know she was the source of and provided such
to SARS and the Sikhakhane panel. And again, it's a pity that
none of the SARS "panels" considered any of these facts

material to their "findings". I find it somewhat amusing that this

allegation only surfaces now, years after the series of mutating
slanderous and false allegations advanced against me. If indeed
Ms Walter made such a claim, all I will say for now is that she
is an admitted attorney and has been practising law for many
years and would and should know how the law functions in
respect of legal protection of witnesses and that only the
National Prosecuting Authority can afford any person such
implied legal protection. How providing information to the
media can possibly result in any form of legal protection to any
suspect of alleged offences remains a mystery to me. I cannot
comment on that.
In re paragraph 46: I can confirm that as and when Ms
Walter disclosed certain matters to me (which was very limited
as it turned out later) within the confines of the relationship and
where applicable, I did point out to her what I considered to be
potential ethical pitfalls, unlawful and illegal activities and what
I believed she should do about them from a legal perspective. I
don't wish to comment beyond that.
In re paragraph 49: Ms Walter and I did indeed discuss
aspects of the tobacco industry within the confines of the
relationship. At times, especially as I came to distrust her, I also
put matters to her with a view to test her honesty on matters
where I didn't believe her version of events anymore. In the
course of doing so I put matters to her which were nonsense.

Over time, she failed almost every one of these and this
ultimately informed my decision to end our relationship. The
suggestion that I unlawfully shared taxpayer information with
Ms Walter is emphatically denied.
In re paragraph 50: I deny any suggestion of wrongdoing
on my part. I know not which particular facts the complaint refer
to and cannot give any further meaningful comment in this
regard.
I request that you attempt to quote me as complete as
possible.
Kind regards
Johann van Loggerenberg
Good day,