ADV KHUMALO SC

The role required a minimum period of three years appropriate managerial experience in the field of the post, not just any managerial experience.

“The first bullet that you see on page 79 says: “Must have a minimum period of three years appropriate managerial experience . . . ” And this is the important part: “ … in the field of the post.””

Appropriate management experience is defined as experience at a level higher than supervisor, but not necessarily at the level of the current job.

“the definition of appropriate management, managerial experience , it comes from Clause of the National Instruction 11 of 2017, and it defines that as experience at a level higher than the supervisor. That is all it says. It does not say you must have been a manager at your job.”

An advocate who has been practicing at the bar for 20 years has educational qualifications (LLB) sufficient for the post, even if not managerial at the bar.

“for example, and it was an Advocate who had been practicing for 20 years at the bar, the education qualification would be the LLB.”

A young woman has been parachuted to the rank of Brigadier, with that rank given upon appointment to Section Head Technical Support Services role; rank is not based on age, race, or gender.

“a young woman has been parachuted to the rank of Brigadier... if you meet the minimum requirements ... you go through interviews and you are vetted ... you will be given that rank”

There are cases where less experienced or junior persons perform better on the day than senior experienced Advocates in interviews.

“there are 30-year-olds who sometimes perform better than me”

Candidates were disadvantaged because they were required to make themselves available for vetting six months after appointment, not before, contrary to what was applied in practice and advertisement.

“They were actually disadvantaging the candidates because the adverts said you must only do that six months after appointment. So, whoever said to them come and do it before the interview was not benefiting them. They were actually disadvantaging the candidates...”

No one at IDA knew where the original section 27 affidavit was from January 2025 until the arrests in June and up to October 2025.

“from January 2025 until the arrests in June ... nobody at IDA knew where the original section 27 affidavit was”

Advocate Khumalo SC asserted that Count 2 against General Masemola incorrectly misapplies section 38(1)(d) of the PFMA, because under section 38(1)(f) SAPS was legally obligated to pay invoices and honor purchase orders while the contract remained active.

“Because if you look at (f), (f) says he must settle all contractual obligations and pay all monies owing. So for as long as the contract was alive, he had an obligation to pay Medicare 24. So (d) deals with something completely different, so breach of (d) is not consistent with count 2, because count 2 is about management of, it is about maintenance and management of assets.”

Advocates Sello and Khumalo asserted that paragraph 20 of the IDAC prosecution memorandum only invokes section 9 of SAPS National Instruction 11 of 2017 regarding nepotism and favouritism, while making no reference to PRECCA or gratification.

“because your memorandum does not even invoke PRECCA at all. It speaks of no gratification. It speaks of nepotism and favouritism. That is a point I sought to make earlier. That if your memorandum is intended to inform and advise the DPP, the only instrument you invoke at your paragraph 20 is section 9 of the National Instruction 11 of 2017, which you quote verbatim. And that speaks to nepotism and favouritism.”

Advocate Khumalo SC asserted that in file 62438, the DPP rubber-stamped the decision to prosecute within a single day without conducting any engagement or requesting clarification regarding missing details in the prosecution memo and charge sheet.

“And Commissioner Baloyi 's point that the DPP in file 62438 , all he or she then says is that having considered your memo and the charge sheet, they are satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused and they concur with your decision to charge them. So it means they only considered the two documents that Advocate Sello and Commissioner Baloyi are referring you to.”

There was a valid procurement and approval process for the forklift, but the supplier failed to deliver and was paid, requiring money to be recovered from the supplier.

“there was a proper requisition and it was approved at all levels . The issue is the failure to deliver by the supplier and the money must be recovered from that supplier because they failed to deliver but they have been paid”

The failure of the supplier to deliver the forklift after payment is a breach of contract, a civil matter, not criminal.

“The supplier did not deliver. A further investigation into the matter must be conducted in order to recover the monies paid to that supplier ... It appears to be simple breach of contract ... A civil, not criminal matter .”

There is no crime involved in the supplier's failure to deliver; it is a case of malperformance and money lost by Crime Intelligence, so IDAC has no jurisdiction to investigate.

“If there is a case of malperformance by a service provider ... Crime Intelligence lost money ... what is there to refer by IDAC? IDAC should simply say we have no jurisdiction ... It has nothing to do with our mandate”

The offences listed in document 937 include fraud and corruption.

“if you look at 937 and the offences listed there, it is fraud and corruption in the bullet points”

There was a generalised Section 27 referral suggesting that all Colonels in Crime Intelligence were unsuitable for their posts but did not specify fraud or corruption in vetting and clearances.

“my recollection of the section 27 is that he was saying all the Colonels in Crime Intelligence are not suitable. I do not remember seeing anywhere in that section 27 where he says their security clearances and their vetting were tainted with fraud and corruption”

There is a risk that an investigator who dislikes a complainant might unduly influence the statement commissioned against that complainant's interest.

“You can see the danger of an investigator who does not like a Sandile Khumalo finding a complainant and say ... I will commission it for you and on the basis of the very statement I will then commence an investigation against the person that I do not like.”

There is serious misconduct in the Mokwele docket involving a doctored A1 statement disclosed to court and the accused.

“it is what the Commissioner calls the doctored A1 ... it is serious misconduct ... disclosed to the Court and to the accused”

Investigators were engaging with BMW management and interviewing senior managers as early as February 2025, before the official designation in May 2025, which caused confusion about the timing of their designation.

“the designated investigator came to you in February to say, please authorise summons so that we can get these documents in relation to the generals that appear in those summonses ... summons went to BMW again in February ... they could not do that unless they were designated as investigators ... if that designation only happens at the end of May, what were they doing talking to BMW management in February 2025 and interviewing senior managers”

Two designations/authorisations are given: preparatory and full formal investigations under section 28.

“There were two designations slash authorisations . The first being preparatory , and once that is summarised and done , they then bring together the May application.”

The section 28(13) authorization document mentions offenses committed by 12 people, whereas the section 27 affidavit only mentioned 3 or 4 people, resulting in questions about the factual basis for including the larger group in the investigation.

“Now, what was the factual basis for your conclusion or your reason to believe that 8 of the 12 people there have committed the offences listed on page 1 and they should be investigated , because the only people who were mentioned in the affidavit , we know it was 3 or 4 people , and the offences those 3 or 4 people had committed was mentioned in the section 27 affidavit”

The list of names of potential offenders in the Fadiel Adams complaint was expanded from about 3-4 persons in the section 27 affidavit to 12 persons in later documentation, raising questions about the factual basis for expanding the list to 12.

“if all Mr Adams gives Mr Perumal is a list of names and it is now 12 people ... what is the factual basis for you coming to a conclusion ... that you have reason to believe that the persons in the annexure have committed the offences”

Advocate Khumalo SC asserts that the Section 27 affidavit provided to the prosecutor does not mention most people named in the annexure, nor state that these people have committed offences, so there is no basis to form a view that they should be investigated.

“We have seen the section 27 affidavit. It does not mention most of the people in the annexure. It does not say any of these people have committed offences... All you gave her was a list of names. What could she write back to you based only on the affidavit and the list of names that would make you form a view that these people have committed such serious crimes that would justify an investigation against them.”

Advocate Khumalo SC agrees that people not linked by the Section 27 affidavit should not have been included in the annexure or the application for investigation.

“They should not have been included in this annexure, because even you, as you got the application, you would say to her, but these people are not in the affidavit. No allegation is made against them. So... They should not be included.”

There was confusion about whether the Minister or Mr Adams approached IDAC regarding the matter; Advocate Johnson initially said the Minister sent a letter that was unhelpful and then instructions were given to Mr Perumal to get an affidavit from Mr Adams.

“the Minister 's letter was unhelpful and you instructed Perumal to get an affidavit from Adams .”

Advocate Johnson states that the referral was received before mid-December 2024 and formed a view to authorize an investigation into 12 people mentioned earlier by 6 December 2024.

“Because you would have by the 6th of December already looked at the application from the prosecutor and formed a view that you are going to authorize investigation into those 12 people that we mentioned earlier.”

There is no draft or copy of an acknowledgment letter of receipt available in internal computer records, suggesting it may have been deleted.

“The answer you have just given now creates an impression that a draft of this letter was deleted ... That is why it is not available...”

Appointment of a BMW engineer as a brigadier was called unsuitable by Mr Adams without grounds or specifying an offence.

“... Mr Adams says none of these people were suitable to be appointed to the post... He just says you appointed somebody from BMW as a brigadier, and then he says not suitable. Full stop. Why are they not suitable? ... He does not even identify the offence that he suspects is being committed there.”

There was some confusion about whether the application or the authorization comes first during investigative procedures; Advocate Johnson confirms that an application should precede authorization.

“I had understood that what should precede this authorization is an application.”

Advocate Khumalo challenges the assertion by Mr Adams that certain appointees from BMW were unsuitable without providing grounds or offence details.

“Mr Adams says none of these people were suitable to be appointed to the post. That is his personal view, without grounds to support that.”

Advocate Khumalo demands proper grounds in an affidavit per section 27 for suitability or suspicion of offences related to appointments.

“The affidavit must specify 1, 2, 3... not that it must set out the suspicion, and then the grounds IDAC will figure them out for itself.”

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) concurred with the decision to prosecute made by Advocate Johnson, indicating that he made the prosecution decision and the DPP agreed with it.

“Remember that letter I referred you to from the DPP, where they say they concur with your decision to prosecute? What they seem to be saying is that you made the decision to prosecute, they agree with you ... That letter said you made a decision, they concur with your decision.”

The prosecution memorandum and the consultation note(s) form a set of documents including correspondence dated 24 and 25 June 2025.

“It is correspondence dated 25 June 2025... references your correspondence dated 24 June 2025 ... annexed to that was the consultation note, and I guess the memorandum, or maybe it is the same thing, consultation note and the memorandum.”

Apart from Brigadier Mokwele, there were no referrals to IDAC regarding other persons or positions described as having token or strategic appointments within the Crime Intelligence Unit.

“To the extent that IDAC went and looked at other people who were 'strategically placed', it is IDAC that decided to do that. There was no referrals saying there are people who are strategically placed within Crime Intelligence, investigate how they were placed there.”

Warrant Officer Mpangase made a diary entry on 24 June stating he was booking out exhibits for investigation, which counsel alleges was false and misleading.

“that entry you made on the 24th of June is false ... you were not booking out the exhibits for investigation”

Samples for investigation were already taken on 23 June, before the diary entry on 24 June that stated exhibits were being taken out for investigation.

“a day earlier, on the 23rd ... you had already taken samples for investigation”

27-Jun diary entry was false and misleading as it did not relate to exhibits being sent to the laboratory for investigation, since that had already occurred on 23 June.

“that was false and misleading because that was not the purpose of that entry. It had nothing to do with exhibits being made available for the investigating officer to take them to the lab because that you had done the day before.”

Advocate Khumalo explained that although prosecutors draft the charge sheet, they rely on facts provided by the Investigating Officer; they do not create facts themselves.

“You give him the facts, he draws it up. It is like me when I say to my PA, type this for me, and they type. They do not know the facts, they type. Here he draws it up because you gave him this fact. He did not make them up. They do not come from him. They come from you as the IO.”

ADV Khumalo SC challenges the assertion that the panel appointment was irregular and asks Colonel Padayachee to confirm if he still insists that the panel was irregularly constituted after seeing the approvals.

“Do you still insist that the panel was irregularly appointed ?”

Adv Khumalo states that requirements for the job position have always been to favor candidates with specific qualifications (LLB, public administration) and having a three year degree, and these requirements are not new or fraudulent as claimed for 2024.

“Those requirements have always been like that. Three years prior, if you go to the 2022 advert on page 470 of File 2, they are identical. So it is not something new that was fraudulently introduced in 2024. You will see that it was always the case that they wanted somebody with LLB, some body with public administration, some body with three-year degree.”

Adv Khumalo argued that for acceptance of employment as gratification to be an offense, there must be an intention to influence someone to do something illegal or improper.

“The point there is that accepting for a moment that employment is gratification, you must be giving that in order to influence the other person to do something illegal.”

The employment contract for Mokwele starting in November 2024 requires her to provide services to the South African Government, implying legitimate service rather than illegal acts in return for the gratification.

“In this case where your offer of employment and contract of employment says your job is to provide services the South African Government because we have the contract of employment here commencing 1 November 2024.”

Adv Khumalo highlighted the problematic timeline where alleged offence date is October 2024 but contract signed two months later in December 2024, posing challenges to the acceptance of gratification charge.

“My concern is that the date of the offence is listed in A1 in the supporting annexure as October 2024, but she signs the contract of employment in December 2024, so two months after the date of the offence.”

The Commission's role is to examine whether IDAC was influenced or acted improperly, not to determine guilt or innocence of individuals in the criminal case.

“We do not want to go into the merits of whether people are guilty or innocent of a crime. That is for the Court. What we are concerned with is what was IDAC's motive? Was IDAC doing these things because they were influenced by politicians, or there was some ulterior motive, or they were acting contrary to the NPAA Act?”

In an affidavit from June 2025, Colonel Padayachee acknowledged that the position was advertised externally, indicating that he knew of this at that time.

“I have read your affidavit, the same affidavit we are looking at from June 2025 and in that affidavit you say so, in so many ways that this position was advertised externally.”

Advocate Khumalo suggests Colonel Padayachee might be trying to avoid responsibility by initially claiming he was just the 'docket carrier' and not the lead investigator.

“... it sounded as if you were trying to avoid responsibility about certain things and you were trying to say, oh that is the responsibility of the lead investigator, I am just the docket carrier...”

Mr Nku met with the person who introduced him to "Ibiy" and exchanged phone numbers, allowing communication via WhatsApp or other platforms.

“indeed, Chair ... the then you exchanged telephone numbers with this person ... indeed ... we could communicate with him through WhatsApp or any other platform”

Advocate Khumalo states there was no operation at Yellow Jersey; they instead went and asked management to open the container.

“That answer does not help you because there was no operation at Yellow Jersey. They went and they asked management to open the container.”

Mr. Nku’s reason for leaving Johannesburg to go to Durban was related to containers, including a specific one under investigation.

“So your reason for leaving Johannesburg to go to Durban was related to this very container ... containers ... including this one”

Mr. Nku traveled to Durban to verify information relating to a container and then passed the information to the police, with no immediate benefit to his company except potential future benefits.

“The only benefit to you was that the information will be verified and you will pass it on to the police”

The contract with the armed response company expired in March 2020, and the alarm system would not function if there was electricity or load shedding issues.

“contract with the armed response company expired in March 2020 ... if there was electricity or load shedding issues, it will not work”

Even if the alarm got triggered and made noise, no one would know as the office and nearby businesses would be closed, and the alarm would ring until someone came in the following workday to deactivate it.

“even if it got triggered and made noise, no one would know as the office would be closed and nearby business would also be closed ... the alarm would just ring until somebody come in the following work day”

Adv Khumalo accuses Brigadier Nyuswa of knowing there was no visit to Port Shepstone police station on the day in question and that no one sourced proper exhibit bags before leaving the office, implying negligence.

“You know that nobody has gone to Port Shepstone police station. You know that nobody has sourced the exhibit bags to properly store these exhibits. And you leave the Port Shepstone office with that knowledge ...”

Communication between Chief Mashaba and Nku on 8 and 9 July 2021 took place via Telegram app, including messages conveying the need to go to a stated location.

“you and Nku were communicating via Telegram , and according to this report, he sent you the location at 25 minutes past 10 on the 8th . And then just after midnight , before your conversation in the morning , just after midnight , you then opened the message .”

Telegram is asserted by ADV Khumalo SC to be more secure than WhatsApp for communication with Nku, but Chief Mashaba states he does not know about the security differences.

“Telegram is more secure , and a third party cannot easily access your communication with Nku if it is on Telegram .”

Phakula was told to go to Alberton because the plan was to take the collected items there, but Chief Mashaba did not wait for Phakula before opening the container and arresting people.

“Phakula in fact says she went to Alberton because he was told that once you have collected what you were collecting, you will be taking it to Alberton... you had already opened the containers, you had already arrested people.”

Chief Mashaba heard that Mr Nkuh warned not to involve high-ranking officials and decided to deal with the matter on his own, not informing his superiors.

“...he warns you not to involve a high-ranking official... you are going to deal with it on your own...”

Advocates Segels-Ncube and Khumalo challenge Chief Mashaba's identification of 'DD' as Kebby Maphatsoe, pointing out that 'DD' commonly refers to Deputy President DD Mabuza, reappointed in May 2019, creating doubt about honesty in testimony.

“Certain words from ADV BALOYI SC”

Witness I confirms having seen the 2020 statement referred to by Adv Khumalo SC before attending Aeroton in July 2021 and acknowledges it relates to 'Nyaope'.

“It is a 2020 statement , Commissioner. ... Yes . ... So you knew that it related to Nyaope ? Yes .”

Advocate Khumalo questions whether technicalities such as timing or possession of a SAPS statement matter given that General Khan complied with IPID’s instruction to give a warning statement.

“Mr Mosikili, seeing that IPID’s response was that you should come and be interviewed and make a warning statement or give a warning statement, and he does go and he does give the statement, do those technicalities matter, whether they got hold of the SAPS statement or not, because their instruction to General Khan in response to his letter was you must come. We want a warning statement and you must give a warning statement. And he did go and he did give a warning statement.”

ADV Khumalo references General Khan's statement to IPID beginning at page 99 and focussing on page 101, which alleges dishonesty by Mashaba regarding drugs, but does not accept it as fact yet.

“I am going to refer you to General Khan's statement to IPID ... It starts much earlier ... The point I want to make before we even get to the statement, I am not suggesting he is telling the truth, and I am not accepting his version at this stage. I am simply saying this is what was before you ... He says at paragraph 7, 18, 19, let us start at 17: " This version of Mashaba is dishonest on so many levels. Firstly, when I arrived there, they had already moved the drugs”

Police officers were arrested for dealing in drugs but this was premature since at the time of arrest nobody knew they were dealing drugs, they were simply interfering at the crime scene.

“They were arrested for dealing in drugs. Now that is premature because ... on that day nobody could make even a presumption that they are dealing with drugs”

It was improper for police to decide on the spot that the bags falling out of the container were drugs and to arrest the driver and manager based on smell rather than proper procedure.

“containers fall out, bags fall out ... somebody already decides based on how the bags smell that these are drugs and arresting the driver and arresting the manager ... that was improper”

Releasing the initially arrested people cannot be considered defeating the ends of justice if no one was supposed to be arrested that day.

“stopping there, releasing those people, then cannot constitute defeating the ends of justice, if no one should have been arrested”

It is improper for police to decide and arrest based on visual identification of black bags and smell without following proper procedure and investigation timescale.

“the way it was done where containers fall out, bags fall out, put in a Nissan bakkie and somebody decides based on how the bags smell that these are drugs ... was improper”

The investigation does not start and end on the day of the arrests; it is an ongoing process, and arrests can happen at later stages once drugs are confirmed.

“the investigation does not start and end on the 9th of July ... once it was determined that these were drugs, then the investigation would go back to the driver and the warehouse manager and all those people ... then they become suspects and can be arrested”

ADV Khumalo SC suggests senior colleagues deliberately chose an inexperienced person to handle photos so there would be no questioning of them, implying improper conduct by Colonel Jacobs.

“...the impression I get ... is that they deliberately chose somebody who is clueless... so that you would not question them even when they are doing something improper.”

LT-Col Sibiya agreed that because of lack of knowledge about handling drug busts and usage of photos are involved, he would not question the actions of senior colleagues.

“...if they were doing something wrong, you would not be able to question them, because you also did not know how a drug bust gets handled...”

The photo shown in evidence is from a later demonstration of a 1000 kg bust and is not related to the June CDH depot seizure incident.

“The photo we are looking at is not – it is the one of the 1000 kg bust a month later. So, this scene is not the scene where the CDH depot incident in June happened.”

Before July 30, 2021, there was space to store 540 kilograms of exhibits at Maydon Wharf.

“before July of 2021, before the 30th of July 2021, what it shows is that there was space to store 540 kilograms at Maydon Wharf”

According to national prescription and instruction, the LCRC must be present at crime scenes and the decision not to call them is not the prerogative of officers based on past disappointments.

“If the requirements in the national prescripts or National Instruction is that LCRC must be there... then it is not your call to make based on previous disappointment that because they disappointed me in the past, I am going to decide not to call them.”

Advocate Khumalo expressed no issue with samples being sent to FSL, but raised issue with the timeline and the fact that Colonel Jacob was repeatedly in contact with Setshedi, who gave a version of events involving a request to destroy drugs due to threats of theft at Port Shepstone.

“My issue with you has to do with the timeline, you being there... and by the way, between you and Setshedi there is not much difference in terms of versions... He says you told him there were people who wanted to break into Port Shepstone to steal the drugs and that was your reason for wanting the drugs to be destroyed.”

Expert Advocate Khumalo suggests that even if loss was not foreseen, the storage in unsafe conditions contributed to the loss of the exhibits.

“Even if you did not know that the sed drugs were going to be stolen... knowing that they were stored in an unsafe place... So I want you to look at this thing holistically and say, we got so many things wrong, and because we got so many things wrong, the sed drugs were lost.”

The investigation diary dated 2 June 2021 estimated the value of drugs seized at 243,450,000, calculated at 4,500,000 per kilogram for 541 kilograms.

“it is the investigation diary of the 2nd of June 2021 . . . the estimated value of the drugs seized , 243 450 000 . And how they arrived at that is they say it is 4 500 000 per kilogram . So if you times that by 541 , that is how you get to the 243 million”

ADV Khumalo alleges Colonel Jacob cut short his leave to be involved in the drug bust, suggesting it was to boost ego, which Colonel Jacob disputes.

“It leaves one with the impression that you wanted to be there. You wanted to take control of the scene ... You want the drugs to go to a particular place, and we know what happened to the drugs ... So to say it was going to boost your ego and your decision was based on that, that cannot fly ... I strongly, strongly disagree with that”

Advocate Khumalo questioned the assumed fact that the substance stolen on 8 November 2021 was cocaine valued approximately R200 million, noting the value can range considerably depending on the cocaine grade.

“What was stolen in November 8, 2021, is Cocaine, and the value of that Cocaine is approximately R 200 million ... depending on the grade ... the market value ... could easily have been 400, or could have been 00, or could have been 300.”

Colonel Jacob agreed that the way the operations in the discussed drug bust were conducted creates a perception that the operation was deliberate to seize drugs without booking them in police stations leading to their disappearance.

“The way things were done in this operation leads one to believe that this was all deliberate. This was all part of a plan to seize those drugs, not book them in a police station, book them in a place where they are susceptible to theft and break-ins and they have disappeared as we know.”

ADV Khumalo SC challenges Lt-Col Duma's claim of malicious intent in mentioning his name, stating that Duma was the person at the scene and present when exhibits were counted and booked.

“It seems to me that all that has happened is that you were the person who was placed at the scene and present at Isipingo when the exhibits were counted and they were booked there. So I am not sure what you regard as malicious.”

Adv Khumalo expresses concern that some exhibits could have disappeared from the FSL long before the floods and that the floods might be used as an excuse to hide this fact.

“These exhibits could have disappeared at FSL long before the floods, and the floods are just being used as an excuse to hide the fact that the exhibits were no longer there when the floods happened.”

FS Labs (FSL) lacks the capacity to store all exhibits from drug busts, causing analysis to fail as not everything can be taken to FSL.

“if FSL does not have capacity to store everything, then even the exercise of trying to get the exhibits analysed fails simply because they say we cannot take everything”

Kingpins behind drug shipments are never identified; only couriers are identified and arrested.

“It is your point that you always identify the couriers, but never the kingpins”

Advocate Khumalo states Khan's statement indicates he left a few minutes after 12:00 while Lt-Col Sobola arrived at 11:45, and Sobola did not see Khan at the scene.

“Major General Khan says she left a few minutes after 12:00...you said you arrived at the scene at 11:45...you say when you got there, you did not see General Khan.”

Advocate Khumalo asserts Sobola must accept the criticism for not mentioning Khan's known presence based on statements and IPID information.

“You must accept the criticism...when you came here, you knew that there was this statement and IPID had told you that he was there...so you do not have a good explanation for why you did not mention that”

Adv Khumalo stated that according to regulations, one does not just take over from other police officers at the scene even if one arrives later, and Phakula agreed.

“... if you arrive at a scene and you find a police officer there, you do not just give them instructions. You do not just take over from them.”

At the time of arrest, the police did not know the bags contained drugs, and could have been anything like blankets or powder.

“At this stage, you did not even know that it was drugs. For all you knew, it could have been blankets in those bags.”

The police arrested the driver for dealing or possession of drugs without confirming the contents of the bags.

“Why did you place him under arrest for dealing with drugs or being in possession of drugs? You did not know that it was drugs in those bags at that stage.”

The police had suspicion but not certainty that the bags contained drugs, yet arrested for dealing/possession of drugs.

“Now, you have got bags and you suspect that they are Cocaine, but you take it a step further. You say you arrest him for dealing in drugs...”

A BMW 7 Series vehicle and its occupant were involved in an incident where the occupant was told to sit in his car by General Khana and later arrested and taken to Booysen's Police Station.

“What happened to the BMW 7 Series and the occupant of that vehicle? Was he also arrested? ... He was arrested with you and taken to Booysen's”

The owner of the Scania vehicle was present at the scene during the loading of bags onto the van but was just sitting in his car observing, and was not asked to leave.

“Throughout the process as you were instructing the Scania people to assist you to load the bags onto your van, what was the owner of this vehicle doing? ... He was sitting in his car ... just observing”

The occupant of the BMW 7 Series vehicle who was an informer was allowed to remain at the scene despite being exposed publicly, which is unusual and concerning in police operations involving informers.

“... Nku had previously given information to other police ... a handler explained ... Nku was told that they did not find anything ... He was sitting in his car ... And you can not explain why he remained at the crime scene ... I have a worry that the presence of that person there was to look at those drugs and see what was to happen to them ... An informer follows the police and goes to the scene and remains until he is arrested, which is troubling ... he was always in his car ... an informer does not expose themselves and show who the perpetrator is ...”

Warrant Officer Magane removed exhibits from the primary scene (the container) to a vehicle (bakkie) but disputes whether that constituted moving them from the primary scene as understood by Advocate Khumalo.

“B u t y o u a l r e a d y r e m o v e d t h e e x h i b i t s f r o m t h e p r i m a r y s c e n e , w h i c h i s t h e c o n t a i n e r, a n d y o u h a v e p u t t h e m i n t h e b a c k o f y o u r b a k k i e ... T h e e x h i b i t w a s n o t y e t m o v e d ... To a b a k k i e.”

It is a remarkable coincidence that the police officer called had a bakkie large enough to fit all the seized bags comfortably, potentially implying suspicious coordination.

“It is a remarkable coincidence that the one police officer they called had a bakkie which was large enough to fit all these bags and they could sit comfortably in that back.”

The vehicle used to move the evidence bags was a police vehicle, contrary to earlier statements claiming it was private, but the exhibits were not properly sealed or photographed beforehand, violating proper crime scene procedures.

“Somebody has loaded them in what is clearly a private vehicle... That is before we came to the crime scene. Look at the peoples standing around. The gentleman there with the red shirt is definitely not a police officer. So this was before we arrived there. So it is not even cordoned off... Like, one of the first things that the Advocate highlighted was that there should be at least an inner perimeter which was not done if one has a look at the photographs... I have to totally agree with you ... That is contrary to all their prescripts.”

The drugs consignment of 554 kilograms of cocaine was not properly booked at a police station of origin, violating normal procedure that should trigger red flags for illicit trafficking.

“why was this not a red flag to you that they did not tell you that there is a police station of origin where the exhibits are originally booked and a case is opened with a case number? If they were just bringing to you consignment of Cocaine, 554 kilogrammes, without knowing the station of origin, then surely that should have raised issues with you because they could have been trafficking Cocaine illegally”

Despite the irregularities and multiple red flags, LT-COL PRINSLOO obeyed the instruction to store the drugs consignment.

“being aware of those irregularities and you mentioned at least five of them, you still obeyed the instruction? That is correct.”

The instruction to store the drugs as they were was described as unlawful in hindsight by ADV KHUMALO SC, but LT-COL PRINSLOO described it as not unlawful but acknowledged many red flags and acceptance by senior officers.

“But then it was an unlawful instruction. / I will not say it was unlawful, but the fact that there was a lot of red flags and the two senior this General and the Brigadier, was happy with it.”

Improper handling and storage of unsealed drug packages without proper police station booking or documentation could implicate someone in illegal drug trafficking.

“if you say they are bringing drugs to you in packages that are not sealed, that drugs were not properly booked at a police station, there is no proper documentation or record, and it comes to you for storage, what if they had stolen drugs from a larger consignment that was properly booked and you were being made part of drug trafficking by your superiors?”

Improper handling of exhibits that do not comply with prescribed police protocols makes the storage instruction unlawful.

“it is wrong because it does not comply with prescripts, and that is what makes it unlawful. It is not wrong because my brother and I think it is wrong. We are not policemen, but you are a policeman and you know how exhibits should be handled. And if it was not handled properly and you are being instructed to store it in your office simply because you have a safe, then that is unlawful.”

The numbers of bricks of drugs listed in the exhibit bags do not add up correctly, as questioned by Adv Khumalo.

“these numbers do not add up... it is not 451, it is 541”

Presumptive cocaine testing is not done by tasting with the tongue as seen on TV, according to the witness.

“So, General, what we see on TV where they test it with their tongue, that is not how it works in real life.”

Director Malatji authorized deployment of security guards to Klapperkop and Brickfields Pump Stations effective 7 January 2025 after vandalism occurred.

“You give an instruction that the service provider will resume deployment of security guards today, 7 January 2025 at 8:00 hours ... So you did authorise those deployments.”

It is the job of Director Malatji to approve invoices related to deployments such as the Gubis deployments, and he signed invoices in June 2024 indicating his awareness of the payments and deployment details.

“As we have shown you with the June 2024 invoice, it came to you, you stamped it, you signed it.”

Director Malatji authorized the deployment of security services at two sites on 7 January 2025 before a purchase order was created, contrary to the standard operating procedure.

“I authorised the deployment before there was a purchase order created”

Adv Khumalo SC claimed Water and Sanitation did not pay for the security services and the budget had to be requested separately because proper process was not followed.

“Water and Sanitation did not pay for this. That is why the budget had to be requested, that 90 million that you referred to, because this process was not followed”

The tender for security services was first advertised in 2016/2017, but actual work only started in 2022 following a court order.

“When it was originally advertised, it was 2016/2017. When it was eventually awarded, it was pursuant to the court order ... But they only started working after they were appointed pursuant to the court order.”

All of the deployment letters signed by MAJOR PHIRI and effective from 15 January 2025 were permanent and lacked an end date, contrary to the ad hoc nature of the security deployments which should be temporary for damage or vandalism situations.

“My problem with your deployment letters... it was a permanent deployment. There was no end date to it... You turned what should have been ad hoc deployments to cover the vandalism in December into permanent appointments for Gubis”

The deployment letter for Gubis set a start date of 15 January 2025 and a monthly amount per guard of R20925 with a total of R406000 but did not specify an end date, implying that the deployment could continue indefinitely unless terminated.

“It gives them Moreleta Reservoir Pump Stations and then it says effective date 15 January 2025... And then it sets out amount per guard is R20925... And then the grand total is R406000... But it does not say when this deployment ends, which means according to this deployment letter...it is not intended to be permanent”

All deployment letters appointed Gubis security permanently without termination dates, entitling Gubis to receive R14 million indefinitely unless terminated by Revo Spies in June 2025.

“All your deployment letters, in effect, appointed Gubis on a permanent basis and if Revo Space had not terminated this in June, they would have been entitled to this R14 million forever”

MAJOR PHIRI admitted it is improper that the deployment letters lacked end dates and effectively appointed Gubis on a permanent basis for security services, which should have been an ad hoc emergency arrangement.

“You appointed them on what was supposed to be an ad hoc arrangement but you appointed them on a permanent basis and you left it there. And that is improper to me... It runs across all the deployments that you did”

The deployment letter is addressed to Director of Gubis 85 Secretary Solutions, not to Water and Sanitation.

“this letter you see is not addressed to Water and Sanitation . It is addressed to Gubis”

Advocate Khumalo challenges the credibility of Brigadier Nkhwashu's claim of ignorance about the docket's association with Molefe's murder, suggesting Nkhwashu should have known since 2024 due to docket transfers and suspect arrests.

“I find that difficult to believe because you knew in 2024 already that a murder docket from Sedibeng had been transferred to Organised Crime and that some of the suspects had not been arrested ... You must have known which docket you were looking for.”

Sergeant Nkosi was involved in handling the termination letter matter but back channel communication through Nkosi raised suspicions.

“Why do you go and fetch Nkosi and give him the letter and say he must arrange meetings with Dhlamini?... It is an internal issue... It is an issue between colleagues who can send each other emails and does not need the involvement of Nkosi at all because these are now year-end issues.”

Adv Khumalo SC expressed concern about the use of private cellphone and back channels to resolve internal City matters, stating proper work channels and emails should be used.

“This is a work issue. You can use your email at work to send an email to him at work to say, please be aware that we had these issues in the past financial year, make sure they do not happen again... It is the back channels that concern me because this is a Tshwane issue. It is an internal issue.”

Gubis' June invoice was going to be processed late, in late July, not in June.

“Gubis' June invoice was only going to come in, in late July anyway.”

Adv Khumalo states there was no urgency on 26 June as all reconciliations and invoicing would be completed in July.

“So that was going to happen in July and all the recon would happen in July. There was no urgency on the 26th of June.”

Adv Khumalo states at that point Mr Mnisi was not aware of any outstanding invoices even if there was a perception they needed confirmation of status.

“But you said at this point you were not aware of any outstanding invoices.”

There is no text or WhatsApp message where Sergeant Nkosi asks to check compliance in writing.

“So, let us keep this short, then. There is no text or WhatsApp where he says to you in writing, please check compliance. Yes, and I did not say there was a text, Commissioner Khumalo.”

Ngaphesheya's grading as Grade B was established from a document at page 535, which showed recognised training qualifications as of date of issue as Grade B.

“These are Ngaphesheya's documents. In the PSiR grading, you see the recognised training qualification as of date of issue, Grade B.”

ADv Khumalo SC alleges that a service provider potential is selected and advised on how to comply with requirements to leave price as the only remaining issue, and then later the same tender is evaluated, suggesting improper influence.

“but here you are selecting one service provider potential and you are saying, give this to your brother, presumably so that he can submit a bid, and you must regroup to advise him on how he must complete so that the only thing remaining is the price . And then you are going to later on evaluate the same tender.”

Delays in tenders cause the extension of previous tenders which are already expired, leading to spending R800 million a year on expired awards that should not have been spent.

“the point that the other witness made was the result of this delay is that the previous tender or the award which has already expired then has to be extended . And if you are spending R800 million a year , people whose awards have expired , you are now appointing them on a month-to-month basis for a period of a year , and you are spending R800 million that you should not have spent on them .”

There is difficulty and confusion caused by having both the original and revised annexures, which complicates locating and referencing documents properly.

“To the extent that we need to look at an annexure, we will obviously look at the original because the original is what tells us where each annexure is. We do not want to look at the supplementary for that purpose because it will cause the very confusion that you say will be caused.”

The original statement should be used to locate annexures so that transcripts reflect annexure pages and evidence based on originals, preventing loss of continuity and clarity when using revised annexures.

“My proposal is that we do not discard the original statement, because to locate the annexures, we need the original statement, because our transcript will reflect annexure pages and the evidence relating to those annexures based on the original.”

In the culture of Commissioner Mkhwanazi, the wife of one's father is considered one's mother, and the term 'stepmother' is a Western/English concept that does not apply.

“I know some of us in our cultures, your father's wife is your mother. There is no such thing as stepmother, step-this. Those are English terms. Those are Western terms ... The person that raises you is your mother, full stop.”

The tender process started in 2016 and by 2023 no appointment had been made despite BEC having evaluated the bids.

“And then you specifically, I mean let us say you are now in 2020, it is a tender that started in 2016, it is now 2023, four years later, and you are aware that nobody has been appointed.”

Advocate Khumalo challenged Director Malatji's truthfulness about the timing of his awareness of the allocation letters, asserting he knew by March 2025.

“No, it cannot be now recently because in March 2025, you knew that these letters had been issued to Gubis.”

Adv Khumalo accuses Director Malatji of allowing irregular ad hoc deployments costing the City of Tshwane millions of rands to continue despite awareness from 2024, questioning why he did not stop them.

“Ad hoc deployments are being done irregularly and they are costing the City of Tshwane millions of rands, millions, and you do nothing about it ... Why did you not stop them?”

Director Malatji did not stop the deployment of all ad hoc guards despite being given clear instructions to do so from 13 March 2025.

“you are now given a clear instruction that you must stop deployment of all adhoc guards with effect from tomorrow morning, in other words, with effect from the 13th of March 2025 . But you did not do that . You did not comply with this instruction”

Director Malatji defended his non-compliance by explaining that he needed to discuss with his superiors and that some ad hoc services were allocated to other departments without problems.

“When I asked you earlier why did you not cancel them , you said there were discussions with your superiors . That was your excuse . Yes .”

In January and February, 30 and 6 additional sites respectively were added without Commissioner Bolhuis's authorization or knowledge, raising questions about authority and consultation on these extensions.

“in the January month, 30 sites were added. In February, six sites were added... I do not see anywhere where you say who authorised this? I never authorised this. How come I was not told about this?”

Deputy Chief Spies was instructed to cancel all ad hoc services, but the instruction did not address the additional sites added in January and February and who authorized them, an issue for Commissioner Bolhuis as supervisor.

“the instruction to Spies is that ad hoc services must be cancelled... it does not talk to what was added in January and February, and who added it and why, which is your issue... Spies issue is cancel all ad hoc services”

Municipal tender processes are often delayed, causing contracts to be extended past their expiry, favoring certain companies.

“Why is it that you continuously see this thing where a tender is advertised, you know that the previous contract is a three-year contract and it is going to expire at the end of February, but you do not complete the evaluation process and the new appointment before the end of February. And then you have to favour the companies that were appointed under the previous tender because you continuously extend their contracts and they get paid out of the municipality when in truth their term has expired because it was a three-year term. You are effectively giving them three and a half years now.”

Adv Khumalo challenged Sergeant Nkosi to identify clearly who "our main guy" was in a message from Mr Matlala, suggesting Nkosi knew who was being referred to.

“You must have known when he said to you, tell our main guy who he is referring to... The fact that you did not do that suggests to me that you know very clearly who he was referring to”

The document containing the suspects' details was shared with Mr Motsumi on 27 May before public notification on 29 May 2025, so it was confidential and not public domain.

“all suspects will appear in Brits Court on the 29th of May 2025. But you, on the 27th of May, have already shared this document including the details of the suspects with Mr Motsumi. So, you cannot be correct when you say it was already in the public domain”

Sergeant Nkosi clarifies that Mr Motsumi is not a SAPS member and questions why he was sent sensitive SAPS information regarding arrests, implying possible special interest or relationship.

“Mr Motsumi is not a member of the SAPS, so you have to have an explanation why you are sending him information about SAPS members being arrested... The only reason you would have sent it to him... is because you knew he would be interested in this story.”

General Sibiya requested information linking a group of five business people, a person named Zee, and Julius Malema to taxi-related extortions, as discussed between the witness and General Sibiya.

“... General Sibiya ... group of five business people ... you mentioned Zee ... you mentioned Mr Julius Malema ... taxi and extortions and you link all of that with General Sibiya”

The witness expressed discomfort that they unprompted mentioned a group of five business people, Zee, Julius Malema, and linked them to General Sibiya and a taxi/extortion issue, suggesting concern that General Sibiya needs information for these people.

“Your discomfort was exactly that, the link with all these people and your concern which you were expressing to Witness A that General Sibiya requires this information for these people that you mentioned”

General Sibiyazi's request is being linked by Advocate Khumalo SC with a group of business people who are associated with extortion and the taxi industry, which Khumalo finds concerning and uncomfortable.

“It looks like you are linking General Sibiya's request with his association with all these people”

Advocate Khumalo SC reported that the person arrested, Mr Molefe, was a business partner with a group of people involved in mining interests in Brits and Rustenburg, and they were sharing information to assist ongoing investigations.

“the arrested person, being Mr Molefe, was business partners with these people I am mentioning and they have mining interests and that was information which I got and also somewhere in Brits”

Adv Khumalo SC challenged Lt-Gen Shibiri that despite different versions about payment method, the money for the Thanksgiving event was available in his cheque account.

“You started by saying you used your ABSA cheque account... You then said, oh no, it is in the linked credit card... You are now saying it was cash contributions from members of the family... So that money was all available to you to be used to repair the vehicle.”

Adv Khumalo points out that Lt-Gen Shibiri needed to show that he actually needed and spent the loan of R70000 for his son's vehicle repair at the time the loan was taken, not 18 months later.

“You need a loan of R70000 because your son needed to fix his vehicle. So when you show us these things, you must show us that I needed R70000 for my son's vehicle and he spent R70000 fixing his vehicle. It does not assist 18 months later to say to us, these things take three months, but you are not able to show us that the money you took from CAT VIP Services was used for that purpose.”

Advocate Khumalo points out that payments from Lt-Gen Shibiri were not made directly to Mr Matlala but to one of Mr Matlala's companies, to a company account rather than his personal account, using a generic reference 'Shibiri'.

“Even your payment is not a direct payment to Mr Matlala. It is a payment to one of his companies... And the reference you use is not even Matlala. You simply say Shibiri.”

Advocate Khumalo asks about the cost to fix a car; Lt-Gen Shibiri initially says no, then admits it cost about 55 (thousand?), ending up at 87 (thousand?).

“How much did it cost to fix the car?... I know. It was about 55 when it started. It ended up to 87.”

The alleged killers of a crime victim have been arrested but not convicted, and the weapons used in these offences are linked based on ballistics.

“his killers or alleged killers have been arrested but not convicted. And we also know that based on the ballistics that you facilitated, that the weapons used in these offences are somehow linked.”

Proximity of some alleged criminals to very senior police officers in South Africa, including sharing loans and SAPS documents, is a serious concern.

“Some of these alleged criminals, their proximity to the very senior police officers in the country is concerning. It concerns me deeply how close they are. Whether it is innocent friendship, whatever it is, it is concerning that people who are accused of such serious crimes fraternise party with senior police officers, loan money to senior police officers, share SAPS documents with senior police officers. I mean, it is a serious concern.”

Lt-Gen Shibiri admits that on his version Mr Matlala was discussing payment issues with Sergeant Nkosi even though it was not Nkosi's job because he does not work in finance.

“Which means on your version, Matlala is discussing the issue of payments with Nkosi. And on your version, that is not Nkosi's job because Nkosi does not work in finance.”