Brigadier Nkhwashu states he never asked Sergeant Tshukudu to approach Witness B or convey any message about Tau's bail application and denies improper interference in the bail proceedings of Tau.
“I never asked Tshukudu to do so ... I never asked Tshukudu to convey any message to Witness B ... I deny that I attempted to interfere improperly in the bail proceedings of Tau ... I specifically deny that I instructed or requested or authorized Sergeant Tshukudu to contact Witness B or any other person regarding Tau's bail ... I did not ask Tshukudu to find out whether the state will oppose bail ... I did not ask him to plead for bail ... I did not ask him to pass any thank you message to Witness B after Tau was granted bail”
Brigadier Nkhwashu acknowledges he mentioned his conversation with Katiso to Tshukudu in a social gathering, emphasizing it was a general comment and he does not discuss work with strangers.
“I acknowledge that I mentioned my conversation with Katiso to Tshukudu in a social gathering ... I do not discuss work with people that I do not know ... The person that I have just met now then is talking about cases and that is unethical for me ... I dismissed him”
Brigadier Nkhwashu says it would be unusual and improper for him to send a sergeant to another sergeant to request bail assistance, given his 26 years as a detective investigating officer and commander.
“I have had 26 years as a Detective Investigating Officer and a Commander, not to know how bail is granted ... I would not have sent a Sergeant to go and talk to a Sergeant to request for bail or ask anything about a case or bail ... I find it very sinister that I will send, at my level, a Sergeant to go and talk to another Sergeant looking for a bail ...”
Brigadier Nkhwashu has had a good friendship with Sergeant Tshukudu since 2017 but was not his supervisor and only knew him as an officer in a different unit.
“... you just deal briefly with your relationship with Sergeant Tshukudu and you say that you have been good friends since 2017... And has he ever worked under you? No, Commissioners. So you have only ever known him as an officer in a different unit? Correct, Commissioners.”
Brigadier Nkhwashu engages professionally with Sergeant Tshukudu, sharing information and assisting each other with police work, including tracing wanted suspects.
“... we will sometimes be looking for these Organised Crime syndicates, and those were taxi-related. Now, I will check with them to say, do you not have leads towards these people that we are looking for? And we will share information if they have and if they do not have...”
Brigadier Nkhwashu sometimes asks Sergeant Tshukudu for informal favours such as checking if suspects are in certain areas and arranging their arrests, but does not make formal requests.
“... I may be asking him to check information on the suspect that we are looking for, or I send them the suspect in this particular place ... please see if you can arrest this particular suspect ... I should think those are favours... If I talk to him personally or talk to other colleagues personally, verbally or telephonically, it will be an informal one, which is then a request...”
Brigadier Nkhwashu clarifies that informal requests to Sergeant Tshukudu are not direct commands because Sergeant Tshukudu is not under his direct supervision and would only take instructions from his own commanders.
“If I will be phoning from my work office and request that kind of favour ... it will be a request because he is not serving under my direct supervision and they can only take instructions from the direct lineage command. And if I have to give an instruction ... I will do it in writing and communicating with his or their commanders...”
Brigadier Nkhwashu and others had a conversation about suspects being escorted, involving Sergeant Tshukudu and other members, but he is hesitant to mention names in public due to fear of implication.
“I do not have a problem myself. However, you know, when you start mentioning Madlanga Commission, no one will want this name to be mentioned because people have a fear of being implicated...”
Brigadier Nkhwashu confirms the presence of Sergeant Tshukudu and others during conversations about escorting suspects, and confirms those others were from his jurisdiction.
“... this conversation was had in the presence of Sergeant Tshukudu and others... No, you are quite correct, Advocate.”
Brigadier Nkhwashu states that colleagues and friends accompanied Sergeant Tshukudu, including Warrant Officer Rikhotso and Lt-Col Khalo, but they were not the ones escorting suspects to the jurisdiction.
“Among them, I remember there is Warrant Officer Rikhotso, and there is Lt-Col Khalo ... Those were the people that we often meet in the stokvel, and they were there in that stokvel.”
Warrant Officer Rikhotso and Lt-Col Khalo were present at the stokvel with Sergeant Tshukudu, they were not escorting suspects but were present during the conversations.
“So it was Warrant Officer Rikhotso and Lt-Col Khalo as well as Sergeant Tshukudu at the stokvel, yes.”
Sergeant Tshukudu's statement mentions that Brigadier Nkhwashu raised the issue of the Vereeniging murder investigation, which Brigadier Nkhwashu denies.
“Sergeant Tshukudu says you are the one that raised the issue related to the Vereeniging murder investigation. Can you see that? ... Yes, Advocate. ... I deny that you were the first one.”
Sergeant Tshukudu claims Brigadier Nkhwashu knew about the case from SAPS WhatsApp groups, a claim Brigadier Nkhwashu denies.
“Sergeant Tshukudu says he knows about this case because it was reported in one of the SAPS WhatsApp groups. Do you recall him saying this to you? ... I do not recall... I deny it flatly.”
Brigadier Nkhwashu says the conversation at the drinking place was informal and that Sergeant Tshukudu was not part of the escorting team but his colleagues were, who started the conversation about the case.
“this conversation was not of a formal nature... I have learned that Sergeant Tshukudu was not part of the escorting team, but Warrant Officer Rikhotso and them... they were part and started this conversation...”
Commissioner Baloyi suggests discounting Sergeant Tshukudu as a reliable source about coming to Brigadier Nkhwashu's jurisdiction because he was not part of the escorting team.
“Can we then discount Sergeant Tshukudu as one of the people that said to you or to the group with which you were that they had come to your jurisdiction? Can we discount him? ... I agree, Commissioner.”
A major difference exists between Sergeant Tshukudu's statement and Brigadier Nkhwashu's regarding when the conversation about bail occurred relative to when Tau was escorted.
“To me, a major difference, and this is a material difference between Sergeant Tshukudu's statement and your statement, is that in paragraph 3 of Sergeant Tshukudu's statement, this conversation happened before Tau was escorted to his bail hearing.”
Brigadier Nkhwashu disputes Sergeant Tshukudu's version that the docket left without an investigating officer; Brigadier Nkhwashu did not know who the investigating officer was and wouldn't have told Sergeant Tshukudu.
“for me it does not make sense that the docket left my district without an investigating officer. How had I known that this docket is assigned to this investigating officer ?”
Sergeant Tshukudu says the conversation about bail took place before Tau was escorted for bail, which had not yet happened at that time, creating a major difference in statements with Brigadier Nkhwashu.
“according to him, it is taking place before Tau is escorted for his bail ... according to Sergeant Tshukudu, nobody has been escorted for bail ... That is really my focus and this is a major difference ... one of you is not telling the truth.”
Brigadier Nkhwashu says the conversation about bail was not started by him and during the conversation, Sergeant Tshukudu acknowledged using Brigadier Nkhwashu's state vehicle.
“the day we met, definitely I want to say that this conversation was not started by me ... during the conversation, he acknowledged Sergeant Tshukudu that yes, they were using my state vehicle.”
Brigadier Nkhwashu admits he informed Sergeant Tshukudu that his brother-in-law knows the arrested person and wants to know if the state would oppose bail.
“you informed Sergeant Tshukudu that your brother-in-law... knows the arrested person and wants to know if the state would oppose bail”
Brigadier Nkhwashu denies telling Sergeant Tshukudu or Witness B that his brother-in-law wanted to know if the state is opposing bail, or the bail amount and willingness to pay bail.
“I deny... that your brother-in-law wanted to know if the state is opposing bail or how much would be the bail and further, that your brother-in-law was willing to pay the bail of the accused”
Sergeant Tshukudu made an inquiry about bail proceedings from Witness B on behalf of Brigadier Nkhwashu's brother-in-law, despite Brigadier Nkhwashu's stated reluctance to involve others in his work or discuss his cases.
“Sgt Tshukudu would still have gone ahead and made this enquiry from Witness B”
Brigadier Nkhwashu acknowledges that Sergeant Tshukudu might have been trying to do him a favour, potentially overstepping boundaries of discussion about cases.
“he could have done that by thinking that he is doing me a favour”
Brigadier Nkhwashu denies giving Sergeant Tshukudu a direct instruction to inquire about bail matters, but admits there was a discussion about the brother-in-law wanting to know if the state would oppose bail.
“I do not think I could have gone so far ... to say I instruct you to go and do this and this and this”
It is probable that Brigadier Nkhwashu told Sergeant Tshukudu that his brother-in-law wanted information about whether the state would oppose bail for an arrested person, leading Sgt Tshukudu to seek that information from Witness B independently.
“if you told or asked or hinted to Sergeant Tshukudu to get information about the bail proceedings from Witness B... it is no" always true that we would only attain that information by checking your record”
Brigadier Nkhwashu admits he may not have been sufficiently assertive in expressing reluctance to engage in matters beyond his remit, which could have led Sergeant Tshukudu to assume he could act on his behalf.
Brigadier Nkhwashu describes a mutual exchange of favours with Sergeant Tshukudu and acknowledges a close personal and professional relationship, including familial connection as brother-in-law.
“he is my long-time friend ... he is my brother-in-law, but I stopped him in his tracks ... I am doing him favours, be it official or otherwise, and he is doing me favours”
Advocate Pooe suggests it is probable that Brigadier Nkhwashu discussed more with Mr Molefe about the bail matter than he has revealed, likely involving requesting or hinting to Sergeant Tshukudu to get information from Witness B.
“it is more probable that you discussed far more with Mr Molefe about this matter than you care to tell us”
Brigadier Nkhwashu says he had a sequence of conversations with Sergeant Tshukudu before and after the bail was opposed and granted regarding Warrant Officer Tau, indicating different feedback at different stages.
“During those sequence of events, Tshukudu is alleging that he came and updated me. And now, the first update was that, according to Tshukudu, Witness B said she is not able to assist me or my brother-in-law in not opposing bail.”
Witness B said she would oppose bail (as per last sentence of paragraph 4), but this feedback was before the magistrate hearing; after bail was granted, Witness B reacted to the gratitude expressed by the family.
“The first update is the last sentence of paragraph 4, where Tshukudu comes back and says the state is opposing bail... Witness B reacts to the gratitude being extended to her, that thank you for ensuring that Tau got bail. Witness B then says I had nothing to do with it. That was the decision of the Magistrate.”
Brigadier Gopane reprimanded Sergeant Tshukudu for some behavior; Tshukudu apologized and said he would stop the behavior.
“Brigadier Gopane says she called Sergeant Tshukudu to reprimand him. The member agreed and said he did not know and was just sent by the Brigadier. He further apologised and he said he would stop this behaviour”
Affidavits related to certain events were deposed in January 2025, about a month after the events of December 9, 2024, making their accounts likely more accurate due to recency.
“their affidavits were done four weeks after these events... their account of events is more accurate than yours”