Advocate Serunye and others found that Advocate Hlatshwayo was conducting bail proceedings without proper support from a senior state advocate or DDPP, which concerned them given the case's magnitude involving senior police members.
“I was concerned that in matters of this magnitude involving the arrest of senior members of the police was being handled without such support and without a DDPP overseeing it... We then decided, the three of us, we then decided to approach the Head of the unit, the Investigating Director, Advocate Johnson, to request permission to attend court to assist Advocate Hlatshwayo”
Advocate Hlatshwayo was appointed by the Investigating Directorate (ID) as the prosecutor on the case, and the initial prosecutor was Advocate Dr Ram Samy.
“she was appointed by the ID and I was told that initially the only prosecutor in the matter was Advocate Ramsamy, Dr Ramsamy, and that Hlatshwayo was then also allocated or at least designated to the matter around May, so earlier, just shortly before the arrest in this case.”
Advocate Hlatshwayo conducted bail proceedings on behalf of the State, indicating that bail was not opposed, but at times struggled with court questions and consulted with Advocate Serunye and Mr. Padayachee.
“Advocate Hlatshwayo conducted the bail proceedings on behalf of the State, indicating that the State was not opposing bail...At various points Advocate Hlatshwayo experienced difficulty answering questions from the court and conferred with me and with Mr Padayachee”
Advocate Hlatshwayo requested the court impose a condition that witnesses not be contacted or interviewed by the accused, which led the magistrate to require a list of witnesses.
“Advocate Hlatshwayo asked the court to impose a condition that the witnesses not be contacted or interviewed by the accused. The magistrate indicated that he required a list of the witnesses, as he could not simply warn them”
Advocate Serunye felt set up by the way a case was handled and doubted the merits of the case until recent evidence led to a change in opinion.
“I sort of feel a little bit angry, if I think about it, that it feels like I was set up, not only me, but Hlatshwayo as well... I think, junior as she was, I do not think she was supposed to have been involved in this case, and looking at it now, it appears to me she was, she was set up.”
On 8 August 2025, Investigating Director included Advocate Serunye formally into the matter to oversee two cases and attend to a bail amendment application, with Advocate Drushantha Ramsamy and Advocate Hlatshwayo as lead prosecutors of different matters.
“On 8th of August, 2025, the Investigating Director convened a short meeting and informed me that she had decided to include me in the matter... She asked me to oversee the two matters, the Lushaba matter and the Khumalo, and others (Mokwele matter) with Advocate Drushantha Ramsamy as remaining the lead prosecutor in the Lushaba matter, and Advocate Hlatshwayo remaining the lead in the Mokwele matter. She further asked me to attend to an anticipated bail amendment application under section 63 of the Criminal Procedure Act...”
Mr Padayachee was still in court and present during discussions about bail conditions but left just before the magistrate began delivering the judgment.
“when Hlatshwayo was addressing the court about the conditions, he was still there. ... I think he left just before the magistrate had started delivering judgment”
Advocate Serunye did not know that the bail condition imposed was not asked for by the prosecution at the time and was unaware whether Advocate Hlatshwayo reported back to Advocate Johnson after the bail application.
“Commissioner, I did not know at the time... I would have expected the prosecutor, Advocate Hlatshwayo, after the bail application to give a report to Advocate Johnson... Therefore, I did not know how much she knew of what happened in court on that day, and what she did not know.”
Advocate Serunye sought the section 27 referral document from August to 31 October 2025, including raising the issue on 31 October with Mr Sesoko, but did not receive it from anyone including prosecutors or Ms Hlatshwayo.
“So from August, I was looking for that document, but no one could give it to me ... I spoke to the prosecutors. I was getting... Hlatshwayo did not know about it at all, she said she has not seen it.”
An ID investigator met with Advocate Serunye and others to confront her about her persistent requests for the section 27 document, angrily telling her the ID had seen the document and questioning her trust in the investigators.
Advocate Santos Manilall was the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP) and project owner of certain cases, taking over from Advocates Ramsamy and Hlatshwayo who ceased to be prosecutors in those cases.
“they were later then involved with Advocate Santos Manilall being the DDPP and project owner of this case. When I ceased to be the prosecutor in the case, I think so was Advocate Ramsamy and Advocate Hlatshwayo. So the team led by Advocate Manilall took over the two cases”
The team led by Advocate Manilall took over certain cases, with Advocates Ramsamy and Hlatshwayo no longer being part of the prosecution team.
“The team of Advocate Manilall took over the two cases and Advocate Ramsamy ceased to be the prosecutor in the Lushaba case, so did Advocate Hlatshwayo.”
Adv Serunye sent a 'Saturday homework' email to team members including Advocates Hlatshwayo, Ramsamy, Mr Brian Padayachee, Chief Investigator Daylan Perumal, Investigator Charles Eales, Investigator Patrick Mlambo, and project manager Mr Sipho Tlale to keep the team informed and attached queries for trial preparation.
“I sent it at 2.51 on the Saturday to the team members, Advocate Hlatshwayo, Advocate Ramsamy, Mr Brian Padayachee, Chief Investigator Daylan Perumal, Investigator Charles Eales, Investigator Patrick Mlambo. And I also copied the Project Manager, Mr Sipho Tlale... I sent them this email, and the email had an attachment containing queries”
There was a meeting among prosecutors from different teams including Adv Serunye and Adv Manilall, after which it was decided the case could not be saved and should be provisionally withdrawn according to NDPP's decision.
“We got together, me and Manilall and Hlatshwayo and the two other prosecutors ... our decision was that ... there is no way that this case can be saved ... then asked for a meeting with one of the Deputy Directors ... then I heard that the NDPP has decided that the case must be provisionally withdrawn.”
Advocate Serunye raised concerns with Advocate Hlatshwayo about the section 27 referral because it seemed to be hidden away and not provided despite requests since August.
“I raised my concern with Advocate Hlatshwayo immediately afterwards. I told her that she was going to have a problem with the section 27 referral because at the time I was under the impression that it was signed by the deponent at one place and commissioned by the Commissioner of Oath in another place”
Advocate Serunye did not insist on obtaining a copy of the section 27 referral affidavit for Advocate Hlatshwayo or prosecution because he thought the affidavit contained nothing substantial and had been instructed to back off.
“I did not think of making a copy because when I read the statement, there was nothing substantial for me... We had a very good relationship with Mr Perumal... I was told to back off from demanding this section 27”
Advocate Serunye and two prosecutors, Hlatshwayo and Ramsamy, raised complaints about investigators not listening to prosecutors and other issues in their emails and memos around August 2025.
“I was also getting complaints from the prosecutors, Advocate Hlatshwayo and Advocate Ramsamy, saying about how the investigators are not listening ... some of the issues that I have been raising in my emails and in my memos, the two prosecutors also did the same. They showed me a document directed to the office of the ID with a lot of queries around August 2025.”
A bail condition was imposed that the accused must not go to any Crime Intelligence office in the country, which was not requested by the State but was issued by the Magistrate after engagement with Ms Hlatshwayo concerning witness protection.
“the bail condition , the contentious bail condition was imposed , which is the accused , they must not go to a Crime Intelligence office anywhere in the country... that condition was not asked for by the State , but we also know from the appeal record that there was an engagement between the Magistrate and Ms Hlatshwayo about the need to protect witnesses”
The prosecutor imposed a bail condition without being asked, based on instructions from Advocate Hlatshwayo, which the magistrate then gave.
“He said he told Hlatshwayo to ask for this condition. He is amazed also that it was not asked for. So that means the briefing was, ask for the condition. It was given without being asked for.”
The prosecutor Ms Hlatshwayo took the position that there was no problem protecting witnesses because the accused did not know their names, yet the magistrate still gave bail conditions.
“The prosecutor, Ms Hlatshwayo, takes that position. The Magistrate nonetheless gives her the bail condition.”
Advocate Serunye says she was involved in the case by instruction of Advocate Hlatshwayo to oppose the section 63 bail amendment application.
“But when she comes before the Commission, she says something else that, as if I was doing things on my own. If she did not instruct me to be part of the case, I would not be sitting here today. She involves me in the case. I do not know what the brief to her was by Hlatshwayo, but she says specifically, because there is a senior lawyer involved there, I want a senior person to oppose this.”
Advocate Johnson gave instructions approving an appeal based on Mr Padayachee’s affidavit and sent a WhatsApp message instructing Advocate Ramsamy to inform Advocates Serunye and Hlatshwayo, though Advocate Hlatshwayo did not ask for the bail condition in court.
“Advocate Johnson gave instructions approving the appeal based on Mr Padayachee's affidavit and she then sent a WhatsApp to Advocate Ramsamy, instructing her to then inform Advocate Serunye and Advocate Hlatshwayo... but Advocate Hlatshwayo did not ask for that condition in court.”
Prosecutor Joy Hlatshwayo did not request or seek the disputed bail condition restricting CI access or nominating Mr Padayachee as a go-between in open court.
“are you aware that such a condition was not even sought by the prosecutor? Even a watered down version as you put it, that they be allowed to go into CI offices but accompanied by Mr Padayachee, even that was never sought.”
During the bail hearing court address, Mr Padayachee was visible behind prosecutor Joy Hlatshwayo at all times and did not leave court as claimed.
“during that particular address, which I understood to be the application which is the application for bail, Mr Padayachee is visible behind her at all times.”
Advocates Baloyi SC and Sello SC assert that the condition preventing the accused from visiting head office was not originally requested by the prosecution in open court, yet prosecutor Hlatshwayo failed to correct the magistrate's order or notify her superiors appropriately.
“Does it mean that the prosecutor and the investigator did not disclose to you that they got the bonus of a condition that was not asked for?”
Sergeant Nkosi wanted to know from Nico whether the bids of his brother's company Ngapesheya and Elshadai, which is Mr. Hlatshwayo's company, were compliant.
“So Sergeant Nkosi wanted to know from Nico whether the bids of his brother ’ s company , which is Ngapesheya , and the bid of Elshadai , which is Mr Hlatshwayo 's company , were compliant ?”