Mr Matlala was pushed by Brown Mogotsi to open an IPID case regarding assault on his wife during the second raid but did not because his wife refused as she was not assaulted (though poked with rifle causing bruises) and Matlala realized he was being used as a tool against PKTT.
“on the second raid... he is the one also who said I must open a case in IPID. ... the way he was pushing me to open a case in IPID, I figured that this guy and whoever he is working with, they are really fighting with these people from the PKTT, and I am being used as a tool to fight that unit.”
There was an investigation implicating General Maseola and General Mkhwanazi arising out of IPID, but insufficient evidence to move against them.
“... there was an investigation in which both are implicated, a matter arising out of IPID. There is insufficient evidence for me to move against the both of them.”
When ADV Johnson took office in March 2022, there were IPID investigators at ID who had transferred their matters, mostly corruption in SAPS supply chain management, PFM, to IDAC.
“When I took office in March 2022, there were already some IPID investigators at the then ID and they had come over with their matters... the matters they came over with ... were ... corruption matters in the South African Police Services ... Supply Chain Management issues, corruption, PFMA and all of those things.”
IDAC took over cases/dockets from IPID and investigated them, even those traditionally within SAPS jurisdiction, presumably under accepted protocols or memorandums of understanding among agencies.
“IDAC, in its former formulation, took over matters from IPID which fall within the jurisdiction of IPID... There are protocols ... memorandums of understanding or service level agreements to ensure legitimacy for why we are asking from somebody else.”
After establishment of IDAC, IPID retained its original mandate unless stipulated otherwise in law, so transfer of investigations to IDAC must be specified clearly.
“The establishment of IDAC, an acquisition of certain power by IDAC did not strip IPID of its original mandate, as I understand the law, unless you can show me a provision in the Act, in any Act that stipulates that henceforth the nature of these matters will fall strictly within the purview of IDAC only. I am not aware of such. So if it had the authority, even after IDAC was established, it retained the authority, so I am trying to understand how the investigation then transfers to IDAC. That is why I say the emphasis cannot be on the investigators, it can be on, it can only be on the investigations themselves. And that letter I then expect would have identified the respective investigations that IPID transfers to IDAC, because having effected that transfer, then IPID no longer bears responsibility for the further execution of those investigations and acting upon any outcome.”
A letter dated 16 June 2019 identified cases already being investigated by IPID proposed for prioritization and transfer for investigation by IDAC under section 28 of the NPA Act, but the actual list of cases was not found by the current parties.
““With reference to my letter with subject request for a meeting to discuss the operational cooperation between the Independent Police Investigative Directorate and Investigating Directorate Corruption… I have identified a number of cases that I understand are already being investigated by IPID. I hope to prioritize them as short-term, medium-term and long-term cases for the ID... I propose we setup a meeting to discuss the cases that the ID will investigate within its mandate using the powers conferred by section 28 of the NPA Act.” ... She does identify that there are matters that would come. We did look for that letter because I was also confused that there is a whole table setting out who must come, but there was nothing about the cases.”
The list of cases currently investigated by IPID that are to be transferred to IDAC could not be found despite requests.
“At paragraph 3, there is supposed to be a document that lists the cases currently under investigation by IPID, but which are being requested to be transferred to IDAC. That is the list we do not have.”
The investigators who were seconded to IDAC did not bring their investigations with them as investigations and investigative files belong to the institution, not to investigators personally.
“They do not have investigations. They get seconded. Paragraph 3 tells us which cases go to IDAC. There are no “their” investigations, surely, because when we express ourselves in those terms, it suggests that these investigators own the investigations and that is wholly wrong. It is the institution that owns the investigations.”
When matters were transferred from IPID to IDAC, they had to be assessed to determine if they fall within IDAC's mandate, and many had section 28 authorizations to continue investigations.
“That when these matters came in to, when the matters came from IPID into IDAC, the matters had to be assessed in terms of whether or not they fell within the IDAC mandate, as she said in paragraph 1.2 and in 2.1. That exercise would have had to have been done. These matters are now where. Do they fall within the mandate? And if they fall within the mandate of the ID, those matters would then have had to be declared in IDAC in order for them to continue in IDAC. And I am given to understand that in many of those matters, there were section 28 authorizations for those matters to continue.”
The investigations originally under IPID were transferred to IDAC and continue under that umbrella without needing a section 28(1) to trigger an investigation.
“the investigation continues. It does not need a 28 (1) to trigger an investigation. The investigation is ongoing, except now it is under a different umbrella”
Mr Sesoko has asked a colleague from IPID to find their response to the letter because he recalls there was a response, but so far it has not been found.
“Mr Sesoko says he did see a response. He has asked a colleague from IPID if they can find their response because he clearly recalls that there was a response to the letter”
The subpoena served on 4 July 2026 required appearance to give evidence on issues arising from Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's testimony on political interference and criminal syndicates in SAPS and related bodies.
“On 4 July 2026, I was served with a subpoena in terms of section 32 of the Commission's Act 8 of 1947, requiring me to appear personally before the Commission on Monday 3 July 2026 to give evidence and to be questioned about ... matters arising from the evidence of Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi before the Commission ... Political interference ... criminal syndicates... SAPS...NPA...Crime Intelligence...IPID ...”
The subpoena served on 4 July 2026 required testimony about allegations including IDAC operating outside its mandate, pursuing politically motivated criminal cases, and interference in criminal investigations and prosecutions.
“On 4 July 2026, I was served with a subpoena in terms of section 32 of the Commission's Act 8 of 1947, requiring me to appear personally before the Commission on Monday 3 July 2026 to give evidence and to be questioned about... matters arising from the evidence of Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi ... Whether criminal syndicates, organised criminal groups, politically connected persons, or other unlawful actors have infiltrated... SAPS, NPA, Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, Crime Intelligence, IPID... The factual and evidentiary basis for any allegations attributed to me...”
Mr Sayed forwarded details of an IPID tender with a closing date of 2 July 2021 for 66 guards to General Khan, indicating a potential involvement in contract-related discussions.
“Mr Sayed sends General Khan details of an IPID tender, bid number 2/2021/22 with a closing date of 2nd July 2021 for 66 guards”
The witness posited that IDAC is now being used as a weapon, implying misuse or weaponization of this institution in the context of the allegations and general investigations.
“My focus was on IDAC and IPID specifically... it is now utilised as a weapon.”
O'Sullivan carried out extensive investigations and criminal complaints against General Phahlane between 2015 and 2017, including lodging complaints with IPID and informing national leadership including Cyril Ramaphosa.
“Between 2015 and 2017, I carried out extensive investigations and lodged various criminal complaints against General Phahlane with IPID ... I supplied copies of my criminal complaint to then-Deputy President of South Africa, now-President Cyril Ramaphosa .”
IPID was captured during the State Capture period by two Crime Intelligence officials controlling all investigations.
“unfortunately, by that stage, IPID was captured. It was during that State Capture period, and IPID was captured by virtue of the fact that two Crime Intelligence officials have been appointed to work in IPID and they were allegedly controlling all of the investigations that IPID did”
IPID formed a task team to manage Mr O'Sullivan's complaint against General Phahlane, headed by Humbulani Innocent Khuba, now Limpopo Director of IPID.
“IPID formed a small task team, and my understanding is that the task team was headed up by this gentleman Humbulani Innocent Khuba. And he is currently the Limpopo Director of IPID... he was brought to Pretoria because they wanted somebody from outside the province to case manage my complaint against General Phahlane”
General Phahlane attempted to derail investigations through various means including appointing a so-called North West Team led by General Mabula to find dirt on IPID investigators and Mr O'Sullivan.
“there were a number of legs where General Phahlane attempted to derail the investigations into him, and those legs took various forms... One of the forms was the appointment of the so-called North West Team, which was General Mabula and a whole lot of Brigadiers and Colonels. And their job was to try and find dirt on the IPID investigators and myself”
Cedric Nkabinde was dismissed or resigned from IPID and then became Chief of Staff for the Minister of Police.
“It is the same Cedric Nkabinde who was subsequently dismissed or resigned from IPID and subsequently surfaced as the Chief of Staff for the Minister of Police”
General Mkhwanazi was driving a narrative that the speaker had taken over IPID and was trying to discredit the speaker by sarcastically calling IPID 'OPED'.
“That was being driven by General Phahlane that I had captured IPID... General Phahlane would even go on TV and refer to it as OPED... Very sarcastic”
Two Crime Intelligence officials placed in IPID by the Minister of Police managed investigations but absconded from IPID after Robert McBride was reinstated and returned to Crime Intelligence.
“These two officials absconded from IPID and never came back. They went back to Crime Intelligence... placed by the Minister of Police”
General Mkhwanazi interfered with IPID and tried to get IPID members to leave and provide dirt on Robert McBride and the speaker related to the Phahlane investigation.
“He was interfering with IPID and trying to get IPID members to leave IPID and give them some dirt on Robert McBride and allegedly against me as well”
Mr O'Sullivan states documents alone do not amount to evidence of interference; they must be read with court cases where IPID successfully stopped police interference in the investigation into Phahlane.
“The documents themselves would not amount to evidence on their own of the interference... they would have to be read together with the High Court cases... where IPID launched urgent application to stop police interference in their investigation into Phahlane”
Cedric Nkabinde left IPID and tried to join the police as a Brigadier, prompting a written warning from General Sitole and potential court application if appointed.
“Cedric Nkabinde left IPID, tried to join the police as a Brigadier, and I wrote to General Sitole at the time, and I said I would bring a court application if he is appointed in the police”
During the relevant period, there were multiple attempts to derail the IPID investigation against Phahlane by false claims that Paul O'Sullivan was taking over IPID, which were false.
“multiple attempts trying to derail the investigation by IPID against Phahlane, Phahlane was going into the public domain and making these comments that Paul O'Sullivan was taking over IPID, which of course were false comments, absolutely false”
One of the Crime Intelligence members demanded the informant to open his phone gallery and made remarks implying that sending IPID to the Generals would not result in consequences.
“One of the individuals made a remark that, do I think that I can send IPID to the Generals and get away with it”
Adv K Humalo SC argues that if Chief Mashaba had described Mr Nku as a friend who often gave him money, the handling of investigations by IPID and other institutions would have been different.
“But do you accept that how IPID and other institutions would have dealt with the information would have been different if you said this is a friend of mine who often gives me money ... ?”
The complainant gave false information to IPID which was withheld by the police and characterized as causing division within SAPS and Crime Intelligence.
“you giving information that is clearly false to IPID because you were the main complainant in the IPID complaint ... And that is material information that you withheld from IPID, from the police”
The IPID recommended that all members involved in the arrest must be charged departmentally, but only General Khan was charged and was found not guilty, and an impression was created that he was being victimized.
“IPID then recommended that all members involved in our arrest must be charged departmentally. However, General Khan was charged ... General Khan was not found guilty ... An impression was created that he was being victimized”
IPID had information indicating General Khan may have been involved in the commission of an offence on 9 July 2021 at Aeroton involving defeating the ends of justice either by action or omission.
“The IPID have certain information in its disposal , indicating that you may have been involved in the commission of an offence committed on the 9th of July 2021 at Aeroton , either by action or omission , defeating the ends of justice .”
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR MAPHOSHODay 116 · 09 Jun 2026Refers to: 2021-07-09Location: Aeroton
Assistant Director Maphosho notes the investigation is independent and impartial as per IPID's constitutional mandate, and IPID does not possess the statement from Booysen CAS 97/7/2021 referred to.
“The case is independently and impartially being investigated by IPID as per its constitutional mandate and not directed by any DPP official. IPID is not in possession of the statement you are referring to as submitted in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021.”
Assistant Director Maphosho said that General Khan was told if he had a statement related to Booysen CAS 97/7/2021 that IPID did not have, he could attach it to the warning form during completion.
“I told him that if he does have a statement because IPID were not in possession of that statement, remember SAPS refused with the copies of the docket, so we did not have the copies of the statement that he was referring to. However, I told him that if he can manage to get that statement, he can attach that statement as his annexure to the warning form.”
Assistant Director Maphosho told General Khan that if he wanted to use a statement he already gave in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021, he was supposed to bring that statement to IPID when completing the warning form.
“If he wanted to use the statement that he already gave in Booysen CAS, the CAS that he was referring to, he was going to bring the statement as his annexure when we complete the warning form, and it is something that I did mention to him when I was completing the warning form.”
Assistant Director Maphosho acknowledges the importance of the statement in question and the need for it to be part of the response, but IPID is not in possession of the statement and awaited its submission by General Khan.
“That is true, Commissioner, because on the previous letter there is a summary of allegations. ... I had an interview with General Khan and I indicated as such ... I told him that if he does have a statement because IPID were not in possession of that statement ... if he can manage to get that statement, he can attach that statement as his annexure to the warning form.”
Advocate Mosikili criticizes that IPID’s response states only that they do not have the statement and leaves it hanging without expressing wanting or requesting the statement which they deem important.
“You do not say in this regard when you come, bring that statement or please give us a statement while you are coming to consult with us. Is there a reason why you do not ask that, because you do have the tools to ask or to demand even? ... You just simply tell him we do not have the statement. And I would have expected at least IPID to say we want that statement, whether you bring it before you come for an interview or you bring it with you, but we want it because we regard it as important.”
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.”
An application for legal representation was made to the IPID before statements could be submitted.
“kindly be advised that an application for legal representation will be made and as the process will require approval, I will notify your office of the availability to submit the warning statements.”
It is normal practice for police to request legal representation before submitting statements to IPID.
“this is what we normally receive at IPID when we investigate the police. They normally request their legal to write or to represent them or to advise them before they can write a statement.”
The summary of allegations compiled by IPID only reflects the complainant's version and not the suspects' version, which is a deficiency accepted by Assistant Director Maphosho.
“your summary still reflects only by and large what you are told by the complainant, and not the version by the other, by the suspects ... I accept that”
IPID used to include analysis and opinions in their reports but these were removed, leaving only a summary of allegations in the standard form.
“previously we used to have a column where we analysed like the whole, the contents of the whole docket, where we explain as to what we found while conducting investigations, but it was removed ... we were left with this summary of allegations”
The IPID report form is standard and investigators are no longer allowed to include their opinions or an analysis of the allegations in the report to the DPP, which limits the content to a summary of allegations received.
“this is a standard form that we are no longer allowed to write ... previously we used to have the analysis, we used to have the IPID opinion, but it was removed ... it is only these items that remain in this form”
If IPID finds a complaint totally unfounded, they make general recommendations and a positive referral indicating no wrongdoing by the members complained against.
“We make general recommendations ... at SAPS they call it undetected, but with IPID we generate a report that indicates that the allegations were unfounded, and then we compile general recommendations ... it's a positive referral ... if I am saying there is nothing wrong that these members have done”
Assistant Director Maphosho experienced disciplinary trouble for including negative recommendations and stating reasons in a form, which management did not like and led to a charge against her.
“I made the negative recommendations, and I have stated the reasons and all that. So management was not happy with it ... I was even charged ... It was the issue of saying I did not know that the person I was investigating was a close friend to certain SMS members within IPID”
Investigators at IPID are not allowed to include factual material or opinions beyond the specific items required in the standard report to the DPP, and must keep other material in their heads.
“We are not allowed to do so ... we were told that this is a standard format, and the information that must contain in the report is one, two, three ... you just keep other factual material in your head”
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”
Recommendations and investigations by the IPID have significant consequences, and failure to conduct helpful investigations may lead to wrongful findings of guilt or innocence as with General Khan's case.
“Your investigations and recommendations have consequences for people...With a proper investigation, General Khan may well have been found guilty.”
The failed investigations possibly led to General Khan being found not guilty, raising concern about IPID's capacity and oversight by Mr Keefalake and investigators.
“Nothing helpful came out of it. Maybe because nothing helpful came out of it, General Khan was found not guilty...concern about the capacity of IPID, at least Mr Keefalake and the investigators.”
IPID received a report signed by National Head of DPCI, General Lebeya, indicating that disciplinary proceedings against DPCI members involved were declined.
“IPID received a report dated 2024-12-10, signed by National Head of DPCI, General Lebeya, indicating that they declined to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the DPCI members involved.”
IPID does not deal with cases of unlawful arrest but there is serious implication for any future representation to have Booysens CAS 8/07/2021 placed back on the roll due to prior decisions by NDPP that there are no reasonable prospects of successful prosecution.
“With regard to unlawful arrest, IPID does not deal with the cases of unlawful arrest. ... Serious implication on any future representation by DPCI to have Booysens CAS 8/07/2021 to be placed back on the roll, the Investigator knew or ought to have known that the matter was referred to NDPP and a decision was already made on 2024-06-21 that there are no reasonable prospects of successful prosecution.”
Management in SAPS has differing perspectives about IPID recommendations and initiation of disciplinary processes, often initiating their own investigations causing delays.
“In my day-to-day performance of my duties I have experienced that management in the SAPS have different perspectives about IPID recommendation and initiation of disciplinary process. They also have different criticisms against the investigation conducted by IPID. They often opt to initiate their own investigation, seemingly resulting in a delay in the disciplinary processes as a whole.”
The South African Police Service (SAPS) faces criticism for inconsistent handling of disciplinary issues and for how they deal with IPID (Independent Police Investigative Directorate) recommendations, which negatively affects productivity, sound relations, morale of SAPS personnel, and public confidence in the police.
“The South African Police Service often comes under criticism for the way some disciplinary issues are being handled due to lack of consistency on investigation of misconduct and the way they deal with IPID recommendations . This has a negative impact on productivity, sound relations and morale of personnel in the SAPS . It also grossly affects the confidence of the public towards the police.”
IPID does not have the mandate to investigate certain criminal intelligence information provided by an informer concerning drug and firearm deliveries connected to a company called Scania in South Africa.
“I P I D did not have the mandate to investigate such : “ The informer received information through his sources about the drugs and firearms that were to be delivered in South Africa ... to a company called Scania in South Africa .”
The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) investigated the Aeroton drug bust event on 9 July 2021 and recommended disciplinary action against Major General Khan for his conduct at the scene.
“The Independent Police Investigative Directorate, IPID, investigated the events that acquired on 9 July 2021. As part of their recommendations, IPID specifically called for disciplinary action to be taken against Major General Khan for his conduct at the scene.”
Witness I reported the matter of alleged corruption and interference to IPID after a year but nothing was done; the case docket remains under investigation with no progress.
“After a year I reported the matter to IPID and nothing was done by IPID in the sense that when I asked status, they said the same docket is still under investigation and there is nothing they could do”
IPID sent formal communications to DPCI including emails and requests for meetings, but these were not adequately accommodated by DPCI.
“On the 28th an email was sent to General Kadwa, seeking his intervention, and a meeting was arranged between IPID and DPCI for the 5th of November 2011... the meeting was cancelled due to unavailability of General Kadwa and Legal Services, however, there was no other date provided... IPID also sought intervention from General Lebeya and requested assistance there... General Lebeya did not assist with the request... IPID must investigate without copies of the docket.”
Section 28(1)(h) of the IPID Act empowers IPID to investigate police conduct that unlawfully and intentionally obstructs the course of administrative justice.
“Section 28(1)(h) of IPID Act, it refers to any other cases that the police officers are involved, but they are not mentioned in terms of the Act ... It gives IPID the authority to investigate the police conduct that acts unlawfully and intentionally obstruct the course of administrative justice”
It is normal IPID practice to advise complainants to first open a case at the police station and provide IPID with the case number before IPID investigates.
“It is a normal standard, because when they came to IPID, they were under the impression that they are coming to open a case with IPID, whereas IPID, we investigate cases after they have been opened at the police station”
The memorandum seeks approval from the Executive Director or delegate to give IPID permission to investigate cases involving SAPS members, but these cases do not mention Section 28(1)(a) to (g).
“The purpose of this memorandum is to seek approval from the Executive Director or someone delegated by the Executive Director to give IPID permission to investigate these kinds of cases where the SAPS members are involved. But those are not the cases that are mentioned in terms of Section 28(1)(a) to (g).”
Tumelo was not initially part of the complainants but was interviewed later.
“when they came to IPID, it was only three of them. Tumelo was not part of them. So we asked for the contact details of Tumelo so that we can interview Tumelo, hence, we interviewed Tumelo at a later stage”
IPID officers do not investigate their complainants but focus on police conduct during incidents.
“at IPID , most of our complainants are suspects on the SAPS cases ... we are checking whether the conduct of the police , they acted within the scope of their mandate or not”
The complainants' complaint was that they were arrested while conducting a lawful operation, which was contested as unlawful according to IPID investigation.
“their complaint is that they were arrested when they were conducting a lawful operation .”
IPID investigates police conduct after incidents like shootings during a bank robbery, not the criminal acts themselves.
“IPID investigate that case , because we are checking the conduct of the police ... we are not checking what the criminals were doing in robbing the bank .”
General Lebeya did not assist IPID with the request, indicating IPID must investigate without copies of the document.
“General L e b e y a d i d n o t a s s i s t I P I D w i t h t h e r e q u e s t , i n s t e a d h e i n d i c a t e d t h a t I P I D m u s t i n v e s t i g a t e w i t h o u t t h e c o p i e s o f t h a t d o c u m e n t .”
General Lebeya did not assist IPID with a request for a copy of docket Booysen's CAS 8/07/2021, instead indicating IPID must investigate without the docket copies.
“General Lebeya did not assist IPID with the request. Instead, he indicated that IPID must investigate without the copies of that docket.”
The IPID Act requires police members to provide full cooperation to IPID including arranging identification parades, availability for affidavits, and producing relevant documents.
“The members of the South African Police or Municipal Police Service must provide their full cooperation to the directorate, including but not limited to (a) the arrangement of identification parade within 48 hours of the request made by the directorate; (b) the availability of members for the taking of an affidavit or an affirmed declaration to give evidence or produce any document in that member's possession or under his or her control, which has a bearing on the matter being investigated; (c) any other information or documentation required for investigation purposes.”
IPID has used its power under Section 33(3) of the IPID Act to compel compliance with Section 9(2).
“Yes, Commissioner. This Section 33, we also have the regulations. In terms of the regulations, because Section 21 we have got subsection (1) and (2).”
IPID has laid criminal complaints against police officers for non-compliance, but not in the peculiar case where a requested docket copy was refused.
“Yes, in terms of Section 29 (1), we do have most of those cases of non-compliance. Criminal complaints, ja. But the thing is with subsection (2), this one was, I would say it was a peculiar case. It has never happened before where we requested a docket and somebody refused with a docket. It was one of its kind. And nothing happened yet.”
The letter to General Lebeya requesting intervention was not sufficiently instructive or explicit about consequences and deadlines, reducing its legal effectiveness.
“My concern is that this letter, it does not come out as instructive as it could, given the powers that you have read ... I would have expected at the very least to say what kind of intervention exactly you are requesting ... I would have found this letter to be having more bite if at least it gave deadlines as to when at least General Lebeya ought to have responded to this...”
IPID obtained statements of independent witnesses including truck driver Brightman Vusi Mtembu regarding container details and events of 2021-07-08 and 2021-07-09.
“IPID obtained the statement of other independent witnesses , the truck driver , the lady who was about to receive the goods , and the manager at Scania . The first person is Brightman Vusi Mtembu , who was the truck driver . His statement , I attached the statement as T K 12 , indicated that on 2021-07-08 in the morning he was in Durban when he received a message from his company with the container details to be collected at Durban Harbour . He arrived at the Durban Harbour at about 18 : 20 . He inspected the container and the seal was intact . He then took the container and drove to Roodekop , where he arrived at about 00 : 20 . On 2021-07-09 at about 6 : 30 , he arrived at work and went to inspect the truck and found that the seal was still intact . He was about to take the”
The police failed to properly investigate whether the truck driver avoided weigh bridges, which should have been done by SAPS or the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) since the driver is not a police officer.
“if we had to see as to what is in the docket, whether the police followed the issue of these weigh bridges or not. If not, IPID was going to do that. But we did not want to investigate this issue, and this truck driver is not even a police officer where IPID have mandate to investigate such”
Mr Mogotsi assisted the opening of a case on 7 December, the day after the raid, and started communicating with the Minister about getting an IPID arrest related to that case.
“So you did that , you assisted the opening of the case on the 7th of December , the day after the raid . You then started communicating with the Minister about getting an IPID arrest . Do you recall that ?”
Mr Mogotsi confirms attempts to sow division between General Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi, to have members of the PKT arrested for the raid on Mr Matlala, to involve IPID in an arrest arising from the raid, and an attempt to persuade the Minister that General Sibiya and Discipline General Khumalo are involved in a Constitutional Court judgment matter (Makala case).
“So , we have talked about your attempt to sow division between General Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi , your attempt to have members of the PKT arrested for the raid on Mr Matlala , your attempt to get IPID involved in an arrest arising out of the raid on Mr Matlala 's house . ... Your fourth , the fourth instance is your attempt to persuade the Minister that he or General Sibiya and discipline General Khumalo arising out the Constitutional Court judgment in the Makala case .”
LT-COL Sebola admits he became aware of General Khan's presence at the scene only during the IPID process and had been completely silent about Khan's presence in his earlier statements.
“I am prepared to assume or accept that it is the first time that you came to know that Khan was on the scene when you are now dealing with the IPID process. You are completely quiet about Khan's presence at the scene, completely.”
There is an uncomfortable feeling that Sobola knew about the statement placing Khan at the scene but did not mention it in his testimony, despite being told by IPID that Khan was there.
“It leaves an uncomfortable feeling that when you came here, you knew that there is this statement because it was given to you by Steyn, and you were told by IPID that Khan was there...people say he was there and you do not mention that part”
Colonel Sebola received a request from an unknown IPID caller for a copy of the criminal docket but did not agree to the request and insisted the request be sent to the Office of the Provincial Head.
“I received a call from IPID. I cannot remember the caller, but he was requesting for the copy of the criminal docket. I did not agree to the request, and I informed the caller to send the request via the Office of the Provincial Head.”
Colonel Sebola did not believe the IPID investigation had provided findings or a report at that stage, and was not informed officially of being under investigation.
“These seated here do not even have their findings, because their investigation emanated from the docket that I am investigating. I did not see their findings, what was their report or the summary. ... No... They were not telling me that they are investigating me.”
Warrant Officer Phakula and others opened a case against Major General Khan and members of DPCI for defeating the ends of justice and theft of drugs, investigated by IPID.
“We opened a case against Major General Khan and the members of the DPCI ... We opened a case of defeating the ends of justice and the theft of drugs. The case was investigated by IPID.”
A complaint about the drug bust incident was laid with IPID, including against General Khan, and the group of arrested people including Warrant Officer Phakula was responsible for laying that complaint.
“Yes, yes, yes. ... Correct, Commissioner. ... That is where it flows from.”
Warrant Officer Phakula admits not telling IPID that the seized drugs were alleged to belong to General Khan, because he did not have a statement to support the accusations and did not have the power to do so.
“No, I did not. And simply because I did not have a statement to support my accusations.”
Warrant Officer Phakula did not consider it necessary to mention allegations that the seized drugs belonged to General Khan to IPID because the person who told him was not willing to submit a statement, so it would not have been material to IPID.
“I thought if the person who was telling me that is not willing or will not be submitting a statement, it will not be material.”
The case of defeating the ends of justice and obstruction of police officers arose from their arrest and detention overseen by General Khan, Major General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela and Captain Sebola, and was investigated by IPID and Deputy Public Prosecutor's Office in South Gauteng.
“Booysens CAS 252/10/2021, defeating the ends of justice and obstruction of police officers from executing their lawful duties. This case emanates from our arrest and detention at Aeroton as overseen by General Khan, Major General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela and Captain Sebola. After a lengthy, slow investigation by IPID, the matter was taken to the Deputy Public Prosecutor's Office in South Gauteng for decision.”
Warrant Officer Magane was charged departmentally with criminal charges related to dealing in drugs, but these charges were provisionally withdrawn in November 2022.
“IPID then recommended that all members who were involved in our arrest must be charged departmentally. General Khan was charged separately and members of DPCI were not charged... dealing in drugs was one of the charges... the charges were withdrawn against you in November 2022.”
In 2024, after an IPID investigation into the matter, the IPID case was dismissed by the DPP with no charges against members including Colonel Steyn, but a departmental investigation into DPCI members was requested and conducted by Major General Gerber, which concluded members acted correctly and no departmental steps were taken.
“During the course of 2024, after an IPID investigation ... the IPID case was dismissed by the DPP ... But the IPID requested a departmental investigation ... Major General Gerber was appointed ... After his investigations ... no departmental steps will be taken”
The IPID recommended initiating disciplinary proceedings against five SAPS and Hawks members, including Major General Khan, Major General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela, Colonel Steyn, and Lieutenant Colonel Sebola, after an investigation based on various statements and evidences including a radio control transcript and forensic report.
“The recommendation is to initiate disciplinary proceedings as the SAPS members involved are ... Major General Khan, Major General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela, Colonel Steyn, and Lieutenant Colonel Sebola”