At the Madlanga Commission, an investigator from South Africa’s Independent Directorate for Compliance Management (IDAC) testified that a “Section 27 affidavit” presented to Parliament may not be the original document. IDAC investigator Mantsha Robert Raphesu told the Commission that there are discrepancies between the affidavit before Parliament and what he says is the original version. His testimony focuses on alleged integrity concerns regarding the affidavit and suggests that the differences could affect how the matter is handled in ongoing investigations. The claim is presented as part of the Commission’s wider inquiry, with Raphesu’s evidence challenging the documentary basis of the Section 27 affidavit currently before Parliament. The testimony does not settle the dispute within the Commission proceedings, but it raises questions about record handling and the accuracy of the document submitted for scrutiny. Other aspects of the underlying dispute are not detailed in the available reports, but the core allegation concerns whether the affidavit used by Parliament is authentic and unchanged from the original.