ADV BALOYI SC

Adv Serunye asserts Ms Johnson was not truthful if she said no one raised concerns about the case in her office.

“She was not being truthful to us if she did say to us that no one in the office raised concerns ... She was not being truthful ... She was not being truthful”

ADV Baloyi informed that the affidavit signed in Cape Town and deposed in Pretoria is an A1 statement and not the document referred to as the section 27 referral.

“The one you are referring to, which is signed in Cape Town and deposed in Pretoria, that is an A1 statement. It is not a 27.”

ADV Baloyi SC asserts that the document 'the 27' is a Mr Fadiel Adams document from outside the IDAC and is not an internal document as claimed by the ID.

“But you knew she is wrong. It is not an internal document. It is a Mr Fadiel Adams document, so it comes from outside into the IDAC.”

Adv Baloyi asserts that the bail condition was not asked for in court, and although the Magistrate imposed it on his own initiative, the prosecuting body opposed the appeal despite not being able to address the Magistrate or the accused at the time.

“I was in court . That condition was not asked for . ... The Magistrate gave it of his own initiative . We did not get to address him . The accused did not . And as an ethical prosecutor or prosecuting body that we are , IDAC , we cannot or we should not oppose this appeal .”

There were no reasons given by the prosecution for the bail conditions in the appeal court.

“Yes, but in this case there were no reasons. That is the way I – I have a problem with what you are saying that it is a point you had to concede in the Appeal Court, right? That in the absence of reasons.”

Advocate Baloyi SC asserted that the charges against General Masemola lacked good faith intention to prosecute and were a scheme to force an appearance in court and cause his removal from office.

“there was no good faith intention to prefer a charge because it is justified, it is supported by the facts. This was just a scheme to get him arrested or present to court, to have him appear in court and the purpose is achieved just by that fact alone.”

Advocate Baloyi SC asserted that section 38(1)(e) of the PFMA relates to SAPS's own tax compliance rather than the tax compliance of service providers or Mr Matlala's company, raising suspicion about the motive behind IDAC's charges against the National Commissioner.

“So it is charges like that, a count like that, that reference to section 38 as one of the charges against him that feeds the suspicion that I have about the motive of putting these charges and me saying that lawyers could never have missed that that section 38(1)(e) has nothing to do with his involvement with the tax compliance of Mr Matlala's company. It has to do with SAPS' own tax compliance.”

Advocate Johnson conceded that the DPP could not have properly exercised their mind in approving the specific vetting count against Brigadier Mokwele when the details were present in the charge sheet but entirely absent from the prosecution memorandum.

“I accept that.”

Advocate Johnson acknowledged that less intrusive means than arrest should have been used to secure the attendance of suspects at court.

“I accept your argument that it was not, there are these less intrusive means that should have been used.”

Advocate Johnson accepted Advocate Baloyi SC's assertion that executing arrests instead of using less intrusive means was an abuse of process.

“I accept that.”

Advocate Johnson conceded that an arrest was not necessary to bring suspects to court and that summoning them would not have harmed the State's case.

“I accept.”

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?”

Advocate Baloyi SC and the High Court appeal judgment noted that a disputed handwritten condition on a bail order was not requested in court.

“So I think it has been, at least on the evidence of Colonel Padayachee and the judgment itself, the appeal judgment, we can accept that it is established that the condition was not asked for.”

Mr Bateman filed an affidavit and testified regarding interactions with Adv Johnson after becoming aware of the investigation, resulting in the docket coming to Adv Johnson.

“d o e s t h a t i n c l u d e t h e t e s t i m o n y a b o u t y o u r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h M r B a t e m a n , a n d t h e r e i s t w o p a r t s t o i t ? T h e r e i s t h e f i r s t , w h i c h r e s u l t s i n t h e d o c k e t c o m i n g t o y o u , a n d t h e n t h e r e i s t h e s e c o n d p a r t w h e r e h e s a y s y o u h a v e c a l l e d h i m , h e h a s f i l e d a n a ff i d a v i t , h e s p o k e t o y o u , I m e a n r a t h e r y o u s p o k e t o h i m a f t e r a l l o f t h i s h a d c o m e o u t , w h e n y o u b e c a m e a w a r e o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n .”

Mr Bateman was a journalist at the time of his communications with Adv Johnson and subsequently moved to AfriForum.

“H e i s a t A f r i F o r u m , y e s .”

The Evidence Leaders do not purport to impugn the medical opinions of the doctor but seek an independent doctor's assessment due to their layperson status.

“They are lay people... They could never pretend to do that... That is different to speaking to the facts alleged by the doctor...”

If investigations cannot find a full explanation why certain people were not prosecuted for gratification, it suggests selective prosecution decisions and investigations.

“if you are unable to find , to give a full explanation why you did not prosecute certain people and others for gratification , that I meant to say it would suggests selective prosecution decisions and investigation .”

The Section 27 affidavit only lists suspicions and does not contain sufficient facts or grounds to justify the suspicions, meaning it cannot by itself justify an investigation under Section 1A.

“We settled that all that affidavit does is to list suspicions. It does not say what is the basis of those suspicions ... requires that there must be grounds for it”

The affidavit revealed only that a civilian was unduly benefited over employees within Crime Intelligence; this does not justify investigation for serious high profile or complex corruption or commercial or financial crimes.

“all that affidavit does is tell you that a civilian was unduly benefited over employees within Crime Intelligence. That is all it tells you.”

IDAC's mandate and powers do not contemplate conducting fishing expeditions or investigations without reasonable grounds or trigger requirements met by the Section 27 affidavit.

“your mandate and your powers do not contemplate you doing that... typical fishing exercise... that is why there is that trigger provision...”

After the preparatory investigation, no lawyer said IDAC lacked jurisdiction to prepare charges.

“no single lawyer in the offices said to you, we do not have jurisdiction to prepare these charges? No.”

Advocate Baloyi SC states that linking names to specific factual allegations would not be in the submission from the prosecutor, but in whatever submission was made by Chief Perumal, who would have explained why the people were implicated and must be included in the list.

“The linking of these names to any specific factual allegation would not be in the submission from the prosecutor. It would be in whatever submission was made to you by Chief Perumal. So the one that gives, by the time you give the list to the prosecutor, Ms Ramsami... already have been told these people are implicated...”

Advocate Baloyi doubts the credibility of Advocate Johnson's claim that he did not remember receiving the referral before mid-December.

“I can’t conceive of a situation where you did not go into your records of how this started... Your recollection of mid December is incorrect.”

Advocate Baloyi SC accuses Advocate Johnson of relying on briefings rather than reviewing documents before preparing his affidavit, and questions the validity of Johnson’s statements about the appointment being manipulated.

“Even allowing for your explanation that you did not look at the documents ... you relied on briefing ... You still repeat the statement that she was appointed as a result of manipulation of processes.”

ADV Baloyi clarified that the letter did not contain a copy of an affidavit but only a copy of written correspondence addressed to the Minister by Mr Adams.

“this letter does not say here is a copy of an affidavit. It says a copy of a written correspondence addressed to the Minister.”

Advocate Baloyi SC states that an affidavit that only says 'procurement matters' is insufficient as grounds under section 27.

“To say I received an envelope that has procurement matters, that is not a ground. It does not tell you anything about the contents of the envelope.”

The Minister has been given written correspondence by Mr Adams, which is attached to the Minister's letter, and in that correspondence, Mr Adams makes serious allegations implicating senior SAPS officers.

“What we know from this letter is the Minister has been given correspondence by Adams. That is what that letter says. There is correspondence from Mr Adams.”

The provisions in the Commission's Act provide witnesses protection not to reveal matters discussed with their legal representatives, which is different from the right to self-incrimination.

“provisions speak of a privilege ... gives a witness protection not to reveal matters that are the subject of discussion with their legal representative”

Privilege protects a witness from revealing matters discussed with their legal representative under the Commission's Act, distinct from the right against self-incrimination.

“privilege is about your discussion with your attorney, with your lawyer. So I am under no obligation. Our 3(4) when I say your, I mean Commission’s Act, gives a witness protection not to reveal matters that are the subject of discussion with their legal representative.”

Advocate Johnson confirms that he cannot overrule final arrest or summons decisions made by other teams; the final decision lies with the team, not him.

“S o o u t o f t h a t p r o c e s s , t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n i s n o t y o u r s .”

National Instruction requires entry of exhibits at the police station within which the crime occurred and makes no distinction between covert and overt operations in handling crime scenes.

“There is a National Instruction that says that you must enter exhibits at the police station within which the crime occurred and that instruction does not distinguish covert and overt operations .”

Advocate Baloyi accuses Colonel Jacob of being untruthful and under oath regarding asking Warrant Officer Mpangase to check Sibiya's availability.

“So Colonel Jacob was untruthful with the Commission and under oath when he said he asked you to go and find out of Sibiya, if Warrant Officer Sibiya was available, he was being untruthful?”

Advocate Baloyi does not accept that the failure to correct the SAP 13 entry was an error of judgment and states the exhibits were not in exhibit bags and hence should not have been recorded as going to the lab.

“No, Warrant Officer, I do not accept that it was an error of judgement . And the reason I do not accept that it was an error of judgement is because, firstly, these exhibits ... are not in exhibit bags .”

The statements of those present at Port Shepstone contradict Warrant Officer Mpangase's statement that the exhibits were going to the lab for analysis; everyone knew the exhibits were only going to Port Shepstone, not to the lab.

“In fact, your entry says analysis. It does not say storage. It says analysis . So I do not accept that you are being truthful about this.”

Advocate Baloyi asserts the statements made by Warrant Officer Mpangase and others are contradictory and contain falsehoods and misrepresentations about the exhibits' movement and handling.

“Your statements contain falsehoods or misrepresentations, in fact . And that is an observation .”

Advocate Baloyi asserts Warrant Officer Mpangase was responsible for the inquiry file after moving from Isipingo Police Station to Port Shepstone and questions why there was no SAP 13 clerk or entries to record the exhibits' movement at Port Shepstone on the 22nd.

“You were responsible for the inquiry file at that point, when you moved from Isipingo Police Station to Port Shepstone. Why did you not arrange for an SAP 13 clerk from Port Shepstone on the 22nd itself to come and enter these exhibits, or record the movement of these exhibits ?”

Advocate Baloyi asks if at that time Warrant Officer Mpangase did not know that the national protocol requires exhibits to be recorded in SAP 13 and accounted for.

“Does it mean at that time you did not know that the protocol the national instruction requires that exhibits must be recorded in SAP 13 ? They must always be accounted for ?”

Advocate Baloyi SC accuses Warrant Officer Mpangase either of incompetence or deliberate ignorance in not following proper procedures for exhibit handling including registering them correctly, suggesting it could be part of a deliberate scheme to avoid accountability.

“Either you did not know what you were doing, as in you are incompetent, ... The alternative is you knew exactly what you were doing, and it was sinister. There was no sound reason, it was deliberate, it was intentional, it was part of a scheme that we are going to do this, we will not account for it, we will not put it in the books.”

Warrant Officer Mpangase was holding the inquiry file for Colonel Jacob and was acting under his instructions on 23 June, including putting stuff in exhibit bags and taking samples.

“you were holding the inquiry file for Colonel Jacob ... He gave instructions on the 23rd ... You were acting because you were holding for him”

Advocate Baloyi accused Warrant Officer Mpangase of recording a false entry stating exhibits were taken out for investigation when in fact they were booked out for storage at DPCI.

“it is a lie that is recorded here that you are taking them out for investigation ... they were being booked out because , out of their book , you are taking them out of the SAP 13 because the clerk said ... So they are out of their book ... they are not there ... you know at that time ... they are stored somewhere else”

ADV Baloyi SC asks about internal approval processes of charge sheets, questioning if the Head of Institution, Advocate Johnson, reviews them before they go out.

“In your internal processes, what happens ? How does this get approved ? Does it go through, does the chief investigating officer get a look at the charge sheet before it goes out ? Does the Head of institution, Advocate Johnson, do they look at this before it goes out ?”

ADV Baloyi SC suggests the impression was created that the complaint in paragraph 12.5 is specifically about General Khan's exclusion from the interviewing panel, implying punishment for him.

“Taking issue in 12.5 is in fact about the exclusion of General Khan in particular from the panel, from the interviewing panel. That is the impression this paragraph creates . . . You were punting for him”

The bail condition was used to gain a benefit in respect of other ongoing investigations that were not yet complete, unrelated to the current case before the magistrate.

“you are using this case to get a benefit in respect of other investigations that are not yet complete”

The prosecutor communicated to the Magistrate that the investigation was complete and there was no risk or problem with witnesses being intimidated, and they had not produced a list of witnesses.

“the prosecutor says our investigation is complete, we do not have a problem about witnesses being intimidated ... we have not even produced a list of witnesses”

SAPS has a policy and national instruction (11 of 2019) encouraging issuing summons to secure attendance at trial rather than using arrest, reserving arrest as a last resort due to its drastic infringement on individual rights.

“SAPS has got a policy position about it and that policy position that has been adopted in the National Instruction 11 of 2019 ... arrest is one of these methods ... constitutes one of the most drastic infringements of the rights of an individual and a member should therefore regard it as a last resort”

SAPS national instruction advises members to always exercise discretion in deciding whether to arrest and to refrain from arresting if attendance can be secured by summons per section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

“A member, even though authorised by law ... should always refrain from arresting a person if the attendance of the person may be secured by means of a summons as provided for in section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.”

ADV BALOYI SC questions why, given knowledge of accused details and availability of summons as a less intrusive measure, arrest is still the chosen method for Schedule 5 offences at IDAC.

“... why do you not issue a summons ... because you know that they will appear ... you know their details, you know where they work ... why do you not issue a summons to come and appear ... arrest is never an obligation irrespective of the offence ... but you seem to consider it an obligation when you say ... I have to arrest ... why was that not an option available to you ? Why did you not choose that option and chose the more intrusive and quite punitive way of bringing them to court ?”

Mr Matlala cannot depose a statement or testify until the IDAC material is received and considered by his legal team.

“until you have received the IDAC material that led to the now collapsed plea deal, Mr Matlala will not be in a position to file a statement to the Commission, and Mr Matlala is not in a position to testify before the Commission”

Advocate Baloyi states that the appointment of someone from outside, by itself, is not a criminal offence, suggesting the irregularity is an allegation pending investigation, not yet legally set aside as unlawful.

“I am still trying to understand what is the crime ... are you saying it is a crime ... No ... just talking about the appointment as a whole ... unlawful appointment ... it has not been declared unlawfully yet ... it is an allegation initially”

Advocate Baloyi clarifies that the affidavit does not suggest gratification as part of the unlawful appointment allegation.

“this affidavit does not say to you there is gratification ... the affidavit does not say it ... I would have been surprised if the deponent said that there is gratification”

The section 27 referral leads to investigations including warrants of arrest and court appearances, but the current allegations discussed about corruption in Crime Intelligence are not contained in the referenced affidavit.

“We are dealing with the section 27 referral, which results in you investigating a warrant of arrest... but the genesis of it is what we are discussing now... the other allegations about corruption in Crime Intelligence... they are not contained in this affidavit.”

Adv Baloyi criticized the basis of the prosecution for arrest based on a charge that rests on uncertain future illegal conduct not yet demonstrated.

“That you have formulated a charge, you got a warrant of arrest, you got people arrested, you have people appearing in court and continue to do so on the basis of something that you say, and rightly so, fairly so, you say, well, we do not know, maybe in future she was going to do that. How does that for a seasoned investigator, how does that sound…”

General Khumalo holds a powerful position and could control or influence Ms Mokwele through his appointment of her.

“General Khumalo, you say that ... having appointed Ms Mokwele, that General Khumalo would have been able to control her or influence her.”

Mr Bellochun lent money to the complainant and others, and there are allegations he ran a money lending scheme involving others like Enzo and Leon who are now accusing him of running away with their money.

“It seems to suggest that Mr Bellochun may, firstly, they have a relationship where they are lending money to each other with the complainant, one. But two, that in fact, Mr Bellochun is also getting money from other people, so, sort of like a money lending scheme that involves other people, such as Enzo and Leon, that is complaining that they think he is running away with their money.”

ADV Baloyi stated the name must be mentioned because it will be relevant to evidence exchanges between Mr Nku and the owner of the name, particularly in WhatsApp discussions requiring witness comment.

“it does need to say who the conversation was with . So , you may avoid it her like we did when he was reading the statement , but if there is going to be qualitative discussion of the exchanges on WhatsApp on which the witness will be required to comment , it seems it may be unavoidable .”

The witness voluntarily furnished intelligence to law enforcement in the hope of contributing to successful operational outcomes and followed up on the information related to the 9th day drug bust for similar reasons.

“A s w i t h n u m e r o u s p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n s o n w h i c h I h a d v o l u n t a r i l y f u r n i s h e d i n t e l l i g e n c e t o l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s i n t h e h o p e t h a t i t w o u l d c o n t r i b u t e t o s u c c e s s f u l o p e r a t i o n a l o u t c o m e s , m y i n t e r e s t i n f o l l o w i n g u p o n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t u l t i m a t e l y l e d t o t h e A e r o t o n b u s t , d r u g b u s t , w a s n o d i ff e r e n t .”

The witness explained that their motivation was consistent with a confidential source who expected to be rewarded for providing executable information, despite not expecting compensation for this particular drug bust.

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

The witness clarified that while they have been compensated in the past for providing crucial information to other (including foreign) intelligence agencies, they did not expect compensation for the drug bust operations discussed here.

“"A s I h a v e i n t h e p a s t b e e n c o m p e n s a t e d f o r p r o v i d i n g c r u c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r o t h e r ..." ... [ i n t e r v e n e s ] .”

The witness was instructed by Chief Mashaba to follow law enforcement officers during the drug bust, despite their initial expectation to only point out the location.

“...I w a s o f t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t a n o p e r a t i o n w a s g o i n g t o b e c o n d u c t e d a t Ye l l o w J e r s e y. H o w e v e r, a d e c i s i o n w a s t a k e n a n d I w o u l d d e e m m y s e l f a b y s t a n d e r t o t h a t d e c i s i o n b e c a u s e u p o n C h i e f M a s h a b a ' s r e t u r n w i t h Wa r r a n t O ff i c e r M a g a n e , I w a s i n s t r u c t e d t o f o l l o w b y C h i e f M a s h a b a ...”

The witness was present throughout the drug bust operation on the 9th and was actively involved by escorting police members, taking pictures or videos, and parking on the Scania property.

“When they get to Scania, you drive in with them, you park. We know later on that you actually take pictures or a video because you tell us that. ...”

The witness asserted that although they provided information leading to the drug bust and are recognized as a good source by Chief Mashaba, the reason for physically accompanying police to the property and parking remains unexplained by them.

“... Chief Mashaba knows that you have provided the information to him, if he is the correct person that you are seeking to impress. The questions still remains, why are you there on the day ... Why are you going with them to Scania? Why are you getting to the property? Why do you park? Why are you taking pictures? What is your interest?”

Advocate Baloyi challenges the logic of Chief Mashaba instructing Mr Nku to come to the scene, arguing it served no purpose since Mr Nku was to remain in his car and had already provided vehicle details.

“You may have made that kind of call, but I think the point is, it does not make sense that Chief Mashaba would invite you to go to the scene or to use your language, instruct you, because you serve no purpose ... You have given them the details of the vehicle, you can see it, there is the truck with the container ... So it does not make sense that he would instruct you to come with ...”

Advocate Baloyi states that Mr Nku and Warrant Officer Magane were sufficient to handle the drugs and that they planned to take the drugs to Zonkizizwe or Alberton, but Mr Nku did not want others to know about these drugs and did not tell his superiors because of distrust.

“He and Warrant Officer Magane were sufficient. They were going to take those drugs, and their plan, I think he said one of them said we will take them to Zonkizizwe, another one said would have taken them to Alberton ... he did not want anyone else to know about these drugs, and we had a lengthy debate with him about this bust. He did not tell his superiors, he did not tell anybody because he does not trust people.”

Advocate Baloyi suggests that if Mr Nku said he warned Chief Mashaba not to share drug information with senior officials because of their interest, that would be incorrect or a lie.

“So if he said to us that you warned or cautioned him not to share the information with senior officials because they have an interest in these drugs, that would be incorrect? You did not say that to him?”

Advocate Baloyi suggests Chief Mashaba was either dishonest about what Mr Nku said or misunderstood Mr Nku's communication.

“Or he would have been dishonest with us. Either he misunderstood you in what you conveyed, or he in fact understood you and lied to us to say that is what you said. Either or. It could be anyone of the two.”

Adv Baloyi SC challenges Maj-Gen Senona's assertion and says exhibits are typical and registered in a SAP13 register at the police station, questioning why the key was taken for this case.

“I do not see how this is different from any other exhibits ... So why do you say this was different?”

Adv Baloyi SC asserts the sequence involved movements of exhibits from Isipingo to Port Shepstone DPCI offices on 2nd, then entered in SAP13 register on 23rd without the Clerk present.

“What happened is from Isipingo these were taken on the 2nd to Port Shepstone, your offices, DPCI Port Shepstone ... And then on the 23rd, they were then entered in the Port Shepstone SAP 13 in the absence of the Clerk.”

Brigadier Nyuswa was not involved between June 23 and October about a suspect until informed

“beyond the 23rd of June you did not have any further involvement until in October when you were told about the suspected ?”

Adv Baloyi SC considers it reasonable to conclude that the activity involving Mr Nku sending vehicle registration numbers to Chief Mashaba was a side hustle due to lack of any other explanation.

“it is reasonable for me to conclude in the absence of an explanation why Mr Nku is giving your registration numbers to check that this is yet another case of your side hustle with him”

Adv Baloyi SC disputes Chief Mashaba's claim of not remembering Sergeant Mataboge, stating there is evidence of a meeting and communications between them involving Mr Nku.

“It is simply not true that you do not remember who he is and what it was about”

Advocate Baloyi SC challenges how Chief Mashaba could take instructions from Yellow Jersey managerial staff when he is conducting a law enforcement operation on their property involving narcotics.

“How do you take instructions from the Yellow Jersey people not to conduct an operation. Here you are in a lawful operation. Let us assume this is a lawful operation. How do you get told by the people that, according to you, at that point are in possession, because Yellow Jersey is in possession at that time, because this is their property.”

Advocate Baloyi SC accuses Chief Mashaba of negligence for not acting swiftly despite knowing drugs were in a truck parked and notifying police beforehand, implying missed opportunity to mobilize resources.

“You left your house knowing there is a truck that is parked that we are going to open because it has drugs in it. You knew that before you arrive on the scene. You had ample opportunity to mobilize resources.”

Adv Baloyi SC suggested that Chief Mashaba did not operationalize at New Jersey and acted on the advice of suspects in possession of the Yellow Jersey truck, which led to aborted action at that location likely because he feared they did not trust him and might call the police on him.

“...that you did not operationalize this at New Jersey, you tell us you acted on advice of people who are suspects themselves. You acted on their advice. It does not make sense. And then I say, this is what it looks like, it looks like you aborted Yellow Jersey because you saw these people do not trust you, thought they will call the police on you, and you were hoping at the second location you will be able to take the drugs and do a quick get away, which I suggest you were doing with a black van.”

Chief Mashaba stated he would not comment on Adv Baloyi SC's suggestion that he aborted Yellow Jersey because of mistrust, saying he would not attempt to say Adv Baloyi SC was wrong.

“I would not even attempt saying you are wrong. I have learned to accept that. I do not think I will ever make sense to you, Commissioner, because ...”

Mr Nkuh in his statement was prepared to involve a high-ranking official to run the operation, but in conversation warned against involving high-ranking officials, presenting a contradiction.

“Mr Nkuh himself, in his statement, was prepared to deal with a high-ranking official. He was prepared to share this information with a high-ranking official... yet you tell us that he warned you not to involve high-ranking officials.”

Adv Baloyi accuses Chief Mashaba of working on something with Mr Nku, not merely receiving money, and implies this relationship was not disclosed as a friendship in earlier statements and affidavits.

“This is about something you are both working on . And then you say to him , if there is a stop to this work together , let me know so that I can stop and then not call you . So you were working with Mr Nku in 2019 April on something .”

Advocate Baloyi accuses Chief Mashaba of associating himself with a team making a planned arrest outside his traffic officer duties, questioning his role in the process.

“Certain words from Advocate Baloyi SC”

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”

Advocate Baloyi alleges Chief Mashaba is not honest about the identity of 'DD', implying an effort to conceal involvement of Deputy President Mabuza in relevant issues.

“Certain words from ADV BALOYI SC”

Counsel Adv Baloyi SC questions why Witness I insisted the cocaine drug scene was part of the same inquiry given the briefing and information about a different drug and origin, implying Witness I ignored the discrepancy.

“Yo u a r e b e i n g , y o u a r e g i v e n t h e s t o r y. ... How do you still insist that this has anything to do with your inquiry number without even asking what is in there ?”

Counsel Adv Baloyi SC argues it would be irrational for Witness I not to have asked basic questions about the cocaine drug scene if related to their inquiry, given the briefing received from the driver and others explaining the transport and origin details.

“I am not accepting that you did not ask those questions that would have informed you that maybe this is not in fact my inquiry number and I should stay out of it .”

Counsel Adv Baloyi SC challenges Witness I's assertion that Masoma was the appointed investigating officer for the Aeroton drug investigation, noting Masoma's name does not appear in the investigation diary and suggesting this may be a misrepresentation.

“Masoma's name does not seem to appear anywhere, and yet you say to us he was appointed to enquire, to investigate under this inquiry number. ... I am saying to you that then surely it cannot be that he is the Investigator and his name does not appear in the diary, which suggests he was not the Investigating Officer in this diary.”

Counsel Adv Baloyi SC asserts that the Port Shepstone drug bust investigation diary contains names of investigating officers but not Masoma, implying Masoma was not the investigator in that inquiry, which contradicts earlier claims.

“We have seen the investigation diary. It contains the names of the people that were the Investigators in that diary, I mean, under that inquiry. From the beginning, from day one, we have names of who were the Investigating Officers, even as it changed . Here , Masoma does not appear as the Investigator, and I am saying to you that then surely it cannot be that he is the Investigator and his name does not appear in the diary, which suggests he was not the Investigating Officer in this diary.”

There was disagreement whether three containers were intended to be searched, as no statements support the claim that three containers were to be searched or prevented from being searched by police.

“None of the statements that you have taken say there were three containers to be inspected...No not even the Dog Unit says, we were there to search three containers...You are the only one and what you have done is you have worked off evidence that says a ship was coming in and there were so many containers...”

Only one container, which came from Durban and ended up in Aeroton, was at issue for search, not three containers.

“we have one container that comes up from Durban and ends up in Aeroton, and that is the container that is at issue...”

Adv Baloyi SC states that there is no evidence in statements to show other containers on the Scania property and denies that searching was prevented on other containers.

“Nobody in their statements say to you maybe there were containers in the Scania property. Nobody...And yet that is a basis on which you draw a conclusion that they prevented the K9 from finding other drugs and guns that were on the property. It is just plain wrong...”

Warrant Officer Morris states that exhibits were not changed but repacked into new exhibit bags due to small tears in original bags.

“He says we put, there were small tears in the original exhibit bags, and then we put those bags inside new exhibit bags.”

Brigadier Sekgobela was present at the drug bust crime scene and gave an account of her involvement, which was considered by Assistant Director Maphosho who questioned recommending her prosecution.

“She got to the scene, the kind of things that she did. Why do you recommend her prosecution? And her statement, it is at page 120 of your file. ... She explains what she did. ... She says it was evident the crime scene was not handled properly.”

Brigadier Sekgobela contacted Zonkeziwe Police Station to clarify if the members were on duty or present at the Aeroton drug bust, finding that Magane’s superior was on sick leave and unaware of the operation.

“She contacted Zonkizizwe Police Station, and his superior, Magane's superior, was on sick leave and was not aware of the operation.”

Lieutenant Colonel Sibiya confirmed that the geographic space in front of the container was so limited that conducting a search there was impossible regardless of machinery movement.

“S o geographically that space was impossible in front of the container, anywhere in front of the container. The space was so limited that even without machinery moving up and down, which somehow was able to move up and down, but even without that machinery you could not have conducted the search in front of the container.”

Warrant Officer Mpangase completed SAP13 forms without using forensic evidence bags, which is contrary to procedures.

“You see Warrant Officer Mpangase completing the SAP13 without these exhibits being put in evidence bags”

The witness did not mention a visit on 1 July in their first two statements but mentioned it for the first time in a later statement, appearing to align with Colonel Jacob's paragraph, suggesting the visit might be a recent invention or addition after discussions between the witness and Colonel Jacob.

“So it seems it gives appearances that this is a creation, a new creation of something that is supposed to have happened on the 1st of July when, in fact, nothing like that happened, and you would have either because you and Colonel Jacob had a discussion and agreed to add this”

There is always a chance that fingerprints or DNA can be retrieved from crime scenes; not getting results is not a satisfactory explanation.

“It can never be a satisfactory explanation... there is always a chance”

Advocate Baloyi challenges why responsibility is attributed to Warrant Officer Mpangase when he acted only on instructions given by Colonel Jacob, questioning inconsistent standards of responsibility.

“You tell Warrant Officer Mpangase they will go to Port Shepstone. He acts on basis of what you tell him. Why do you apply a different standard to him and say... the one who booked it out is responsible when in fact he booked it out because you said so?”

Advocate Baloyi challenged Colonel Jacob's assertion that resealing the container after unpacking was of no consequence to police procedure, stating that sealing is critical for verifying custody and police must document and seal containers after interventions.

“But what do you mean you have no interest, whether you seal it or not is irrelevant? ... you take pictures of everything that you do ... that is why you have a record of what was done when we locked it up, and here is the seal number ... That is why you take pictures ...”

Advocate Baloyi SC indicated that if protocol does not require resealing, it should be confirmed and considered for amendment, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing police procedures from general practice.

“If you say the protocol does not require that I seal it back, because it is of no consequence, we look at the protocol ... maybe even comment, finally, whether that protocol needs to be amended or not ... We have to distinguish those protocols required of police officers when they do operations like this.”

During a police operation on 1st July, the protocol requires that when opening a container, records must be made including pictures of findings and seals, regardless of the presence of a clearing agent.

“This was a police operation on the 1st of July. It was. When you went and opened there, at least we must assume for now, that you were conducting a police operation on the 1st of July. You got there you instructed that that container be opened in the exercise of police function. That is why it is in your diary, right?...You record what you have done, you take pictures of what you found there, and then you close up and you record the seal number. That is what I am suggesting to you, that you record and you take pictures, including pictures on the number of the seal that you have used to reseal the container, whether or not the agent is there.”

Advocate Baloyi SC suggests Mpangase’s conduct in handling the samples shows incompetence or deliberate mishandling, whereas Colonel Jacob instructed him to do random sampling of 5 bricks from the 541 suspected cocaine bags for laboratory analysis.

“He is either terribly incompetent or deliberate in how he has done everything that he has touched in this operation... You left it to him to pick, so as far as you are concerned, the sample could have come from the first 5 bags... there was no method that you gave to him, you just said randomly, pick randomly 5 bricks and take a sample.”

ADV BALOYI SC asserts COLONEL JACOB never made a request to the lab for destruction of the drugs, which COLONEL JACOB does not refute in testimony.

“You never made a request for a destruction ... you certainly have not testified and we do not have anywhere in your statements ... other than your discussion with Setshedi, which was a general discussion, you say, nowhere was a request made to the lab.”

ADV BALOYI SC argues under COLONEL JACOB's account, the drugs' only possible fate was theft, not destruction, as the lab did not have the drugs due to lack of space.

“Your answer then suggests that the only destiny for these drugs was they were going to be stolen because this lab was not going to have them because they do not have space and Pretoria, you tell us, you even tried Pretoria, it does not have space. The lab could never destroy the drugs though the investigation finished, and their destiny was to be stolen.”

Advocate Baloyi argues that despite knowing the lab lacks capacity, Colonel Jacob continued informal communication with the lab about destruction, which does not add up logically.

“You know they do not have capacity, but you keep asking her when are you going, can you destroy...It does not add up...”

Colonel Jacob admits to being on leave during the narcotics operation and acknowledges that it is unusual for him to pick a junior officer not normally involved in such operations to be part of the team.

“You are on leave. You are not in the office… You choose someone who does not do this in the normal course of their work… You are sitting in your house and you pick him by name. That is a great curiosity.”

Advocate Baloyi SC challenges Colonel Jacob's decision to pick an inexperienced junior officer, suggesting that more experienced members could have contributed valuable input to the narcotics operation.

“You pick some one who does not do this in the normal course of their work… a very junior person… that does require an explanation, especially in an operation that goes so horribly wrong.”

Adv Baloyi SC alleged that Colonel Jacob should have bagged the exhibits at Isipingo before they were put onto any vehicle and transported to Port Shepstone, according to rule, law, regulation or instruction.

“You should be bagging them at Isipingo before they are put onto anyone's vehicle and transported to Port Shepstone. You knew that you have to get evidence bags and bag them there at Isipingo. As a matter of rule or law or regulation or instruction, they had to be bagged there.”

Adv Baloyi SC asserted that Colonel Jacob did not phone around to get evidence bags despite not being rushed and having time to do so, and that this was improper.

“I am asking you important SETs, essential, in fact, SETs, why do you not phone around? Because you are not rushing anyway at that point ... You did not do that. You did not call around.”

Adv Baloyi SC stated that Colonel Jacob accepted he should have found out if evidence bags could be found elsewhere before transporting unbagged exhibits.

“You accept you should have found out if you can get the bags elsewhere before you transported them unbagged.”

Adv Baloyi SC suggested that if LCR C had been on the scene, there would have been eyes on the exhibits and Colonel Jacob should not have lost sight of the exhibits while finding the Exhibit Clerk.

“If LCR C had been on the scene, there would have been eyes on that, right? While you go in, you would have waited. You should have waited. I want to suggest to you that you should know as the leader of that operation, you should not have lost sight of these exhibits.”

Colonel Jacob asserted that Sergeant Govender's statement contradicts Colonel Jacob's claim that they took the bags off the vehicle and then left to do their job.

“You see, I think his Warrant Officer Govender who says we arrived, we took the bags off the vehicle and we left to go and do our job. So he does not say the same thing that you say.”

Adv Baloyi expresses confusion and challenges the reason for Colonel Jacob's return to count the bags again, arguing it does not make sense for a police officer to retally the bags after counting 5395 bags as per the packing list, suggesting the operation was more about appearances of an investigation rather than a real investigation.

“Th e r e a s o n I a s k a n d t h a t I a m s t i l l c o n f u s e d a n d n o t c l e a r a b o u t w h y y o u w o u l d g o b a c k i s”

There was no Customs official present when the seal was broken; the person thought to be Customs official was in fact a liaison for CHC, not a Customs official.

“T h e r e w a s n o C u s t o m s o ff i c i a l p r e s e n t w h e n t h e s e a l w a s b r o k e n . Yo u h a v e e x p l a i n e d t h a t y o u 10 h a v e s i n c e f o u n d o u t t h a t h e i s i n f a c t a a p e r s o n w h o i s a l i a i s o n f o r C H C , n o t a C u s t o m s o ff i c i a l”

Sergeant Mkhize and Govender were not present when the seal was broken, contrary to what was represented in the investigation diary and initial statements.

“A n d t h e n t h e r e i s S e r g e a n t M k h i z e a n d G o v e n d e r. T h e y w e r e n o t t h e r e w h e n t h e s e a l w a s b r o k e n . T h a t i s a m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . I n f a c t , y o u s a y t h a t i n y o u r s t a t e m e n t t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n y o u d o n o t m e n t i o n t h e m a s p r e s e n t b e c a u s e y o u h a v e s e e n t h e i r s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e y d o n o t s p e a k t o b e i n g p r e s e n t .”

Colonel Jacob admits that the statement made in 2021 about presence of Customs official and others during seal breaking contains inaccurate and misleading matters.

“This statement in 2021, immediate ly, fresh after the incident, whenever in 2021 that was, it would still have been very fresh, contains matter that is not correct , and you would have known that as you put it down is what you are saying and what you observe is in fact inaccurate and it is misleading.”

DPCI was not informed about the stop on the container until Lt-Col Duma's involvement caused their involvement, so they were unaware beforehand.

“we know it was not brought to the attention of DPCI, because DPCI becomes involved through you. It is because of your involvement that DPCI is involved.”

When the seal of the container was broken during the operation, there were no customs or SARS personnel present, only SAPS, DPCI, and the Depot Manager.

“In the opening of this when, in this, now we are back in this operation, when the seal is broken there was no customs or veterinarian together with your police people. They were not there. You had only your SAPS, DPCI, the Depot Manager I think you say and, ja, pretty much. There was no SARS people there or customs people.”

The National Instruction requires that all exhibits, except dagga and cat, must be submitted to FSL within seven days.

“the National Instruction requires that within seven days, all of those exhibits must go to FSL anyway”

For a determination that the feared bias in relation to discussions in telephone calls is reasonable, facts must be presented to the Commission for it to decide on the apprehension of bias.

“if we do not have the facts about those calls, what was discussed, are we in a position, at least as it relates to those calls, is the Commission in a position to make a determination that whatever was discussed in the calls creates a reasonable apprehension of bias?”

Mr Mogotsi refuses to provide the name of the person who allegedly has files and documents that can assist the Commission, despite being pressed multiple times by Adv Baloyi SC.

“You are refusing to give the name of that person.”

Adv Baloyi SC states Mr Mogotsi is refusing to give the name of the person who allegedly has files and documents for the Commission's investigation which Mr Mogotsi repeatedly mentions but does not disclose.

“You are refusing to give the name of that person who you say can come here, has got files and documents, because that is what you said.”

Adv Baloyi SC asserts that if General Khan had been at the scene, Lt-Col Sebola who was in charge would have seen him, implying that Khan's claim to have been there and introduced personnel is likely truthful unless proven otherwise.

“Let us assume he is telling the truth that he was on the scene ... you would have seen him”

Lt-Col Sebola confirms that if any police officer at the scene was doing what General Khan described, he would have seen that officer because he was in charge and controlling the scene.

“If any police officer did that on your scene that you would have been in charge of, you would have seen it”

Adv Baloyi accused Warrant Officer Magane and SAPS of not considering the risk of driving the truck with drugs, revealing the truck contained drugs to someone outside their circle, thus creating risks.

“You did not consider at all the risk of driving with those drugs in that truck ... You have created a risk that someone else might just take those drugs from you on the road ... I am not concerned about Chief Mashaba, I am talking about you, SAPS, that you think it is appropriate ... it is not appropriate having disclosed already to the security at the gate that there is a truck that has drugs on it, you have now disclosed to Mr Hardug in there and then you deem it appropriate”

Warrant Officer Magane did not call the emergency number 10111 despite many other officers being called for help and available.

“when you arrive there, you are calling all of these people to come and help you, and many of them are not available, why did you not call 10111?”

At the crime scene under scrutiny, the first responder did not create a cordon before the arrival of the Booysens team.

“3 A s a y s y o u m u s t e s t a b l i s h a n i n n e r2 0 c o r d o n a r o u n d t h e p e r i m e t e r o f t h e c r i m e s c e n e . T h a t w a s n o t d o n e h e r e . Yo u d i d n o t c r e a t e , a s t h e f i r s t r e s p o n d e r, y o u d i d n o t c r e a t e a c o r d o n o f t h e c r i m e s c e n e , d i d y o u ?”

According to National Instruction 3C, the original position of exhibits should be recorded upon crime scene examiner's arrival. The original position of the exhibits was in the container and on the ground where they fell when the door was opened before being taken to the vehicle.

“3 C s a y s : " Th e i n f o r m a t i o n n e e d s t o b e g i v e n t o t h e c r i m e s c e n e e x a m i n e r u p o n h i s a r r i v a l t o i n d i c a t e ... t h e o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n o f t h e e x h i b i t s ... I t is i n t h e c o n t a i n e r a n d o n t h e g r o u n d w h e r e y o u s a y t h e y f e l l ."”

Because LCRC was not present at the scene, potential DNA and fingerprint evidence that might have been collected was missed, which is a shortcoming.

“But because LCRC was not there , you still miss the DNA evidence that you might have been able to pick up , DNA and fingerprint .”

Item 12 of the tender relates to rates and taxes, indicating the company is in arrears and no lease exists, and directors' rates and taxes are not attached, suggesting an address of Ngaphesheya10 in the relevant municipality to identify the tender jurisdiction.

“item 12 is rates and taxes, it says company is in arrears, and there is no lease, and then it says directors' rates and taxes are not attached”

Advocate Baloyi refutes Deputy Chief Dhlamini's claim that the bid register document at page 511 was publicly available, asserting it was an internal City of Tshwane document not available to the public and that Deputy Chief Dhlamini shared this document with Sergeant Nkosi.

“you went into the system and got a City of Tshwane document that you agree was not available to the public”

Adv Baloyi accuses Deputy Chief Dhlamini of being dishonest about the content and meaning of a WhatsApp message implying that the CFO will take over roles previously performed for Sergeant Nkosi's father.

“You are not being honest about the content of this WhatsApp ... The CFO will take over what Sergeant Nkosi's father used to do ... You are not being open ...”

The list was given for the purpose of assisting and gaining advantage in a tender process, not for verification of political affiliations.

“They want to get a certain advantage through your assistance to do with a tender... This is a tender process of the City... It should not matter whether the people are ANC or not.”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini forwarded the list to the CFO instead of rejecting it, despite it being given for improper purposes.

“If you were acting properly you would have kicked them out of your office... You forward it to the CFO.”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini states that the people who came wanted assistance to get a tender, not just to name-drop or declare knowledge of CIC.

“They came to you for help with the tender process and that help is to help them get this tender.”

Distribution of the vehicle list at that stage was purposeless for compliance checking since the tender process had already closed.

“no checking of compliance that is useful ... because the ship has sailed”

Major Phiri, in his role, does the risk assessment and determines whether security services are still required based on client department instructions.

“I understood you to say it includes your risk assessment . You analyse whether these service is required”

The BAC recommended cancellation of TMPD-3 because the specification did not include PSIRA guidelines, which was a valid reason according to the evidence.

“the reason that the BAC recommended the cancellation of TMPD-3, one of the reasons is the specification does not say anything about PSIRA guidelines, and you say that was a valid reason for cancellation.”

As a matter of common law, an employee has an obligation to keep employer's affairs confidential and only disclose as required by their role.

“... as a matter of common law , an employee , and that includes you , has an obligation to keep the affairs , information of the employer confidential and to disclose only insofar as it is required by their role ...”

The urgency claimed by Mr Mnisi to speak with General Dhlamini about termination issues is challenged as not valid by Adv Baloyi based on the timing and procedural aspects.

“I need to do this on a call and I need to do it now... So it does not make sense that you have a meeting that you are scheduling and then you say I have to speak to him now so that I can't talk about the future that is only starting on the 1st of July... So it does not make sense at all as an explanation for why it is urgent to have a call...”

The discussion Mr Mnisi is purportedly seeking with Sergeant Nkosi and General Dhlamini about Gubis and termination was actually about different issues and unrelated to what he stated as the urgency.

“Gubis is about the letter that was sent to Gubis... But Gubis is not the only service provider who is implicated by termination of these adhoc services... So that again is to me, to me suggests that in fact your telephoned discussion and your meeting that you are asking for had nothing to do with what you are telling us that they were about...”

Adv Baloyi states that the year-end financial process occurs every year and is not unique, questioning the rush specifically regarding Gubis.

“That is what happens every year - end. It is not unique here. Every year - end that is exactly what the processes of closing year end entail. So you have to explain why this is different that you are rushing things in this way and specifically relating to Gubis.”

Adv Baloyi argues that the committee decision logic negates the need for declaration of interest since it is a committee decision overriding any individual's bias.

“On your logic, and the logic that the BAC is a committee and a decision that comes out of that is a committee decision, and therefore an individual could not impact the outcome ... even if Bheki were your brother ... that would not disqualify you or require you to make a declaration because the BAC is a committee decision. ... That is the effect of what you are saying, and I am saying that cannot be correct.”

The term 'regroup if need be' was contested; what was actually written was 'we need to regroup on it' which is more positive in tone.

“Well, the last thing I want to say is your text does not say regroup if need be... What is written here is we need to regroup on it. It is quite positive.”

MR MNISI was looking at a completed tender document of Ngaphesheya which was Grade B and he was advising Nkosi to tell Dlamini to provide information for correction.

“You are sitting with a document which is completed in a way that you have determined or you have been told does not meet the requirements... You are looking at a completed tender document of Ngaphesheya and you picked up errors or shortcomings about it, which is that it is a grade, it is indicated Grade B... You are advising Nkosi to tell Dlamini to correct this...”

ADV Baloyi SC accuses Mr Mnisi of alerting Bheki to a tender to encourage submission and coordination, implying improper conduct.

“To me this looks like you are alerting him to a tender and you wanted him to submit and you needed to get together so that you can discuss what you are discussing about completing that tender . And you are Chairperson of the BAC that is going to be adjudicating that very bid and you see nothing wrong with that .”

There was confusion and lack of clarity on how the errant decision to disqualify bidder 2 for not having a five-ton truck was reversed, with the BAC accepting the reversal without clear basis.

“it is not clear how the basis for reversing the decision about having a five-ton truck ... the BAC seems to have accepted this as having cleared the thing”

The TMPD did not monitor the deployment at least twice a month as stipulated by the Service Level Agreement due to personnel capacity constraints.

“the review of the monitoring reports revealed that the TMPD does not monitor the deployment at least twice a month as stipulated by the SLA”

Director Malatji accepts that because of capacity constraints, verification of service provider invoices is based on the invoice claims and not always on site monitoring.

“probably that some invoices were paid even though services were not rendered as reflected in that invoice because you would not know if monitoring does not happen as regularly or as agreed, then you dependent entirely on the service provider to say in their invoice we did deploy our people... I accept that.”

There is difficulty in accessing certain files such as a Phiri suspension letter relevant to Deputy Commissioner Dhlamini.

“that is your signature at the bottom.”

The tender in question relates to a vehicle lease agreement including a five-tonne truck for a Tswhane tender already submitted and pending decision.

“this exchange was not about knocking on doors trying to get business, but in fact related to a tender that has been submitted already... It says lease agreement of vehicles... including a five-tonne truck... This is the Tswhane tender.”

The document lists detailed stolen property including serial numbers of pistols and rounds, and the names and dates of birth of suspects including their nationalities and case involvements.

“It lists the details of what exactly was stolen. The truckloads of chrome. Pistols. It even gives serial numbers of pistols. And the number of rounds ... It has names and dates of birth of suspects following their arrests ... It also says they are involved in certain case numbers ... It lists them at the bottom of that page and then at 596 ... it also says when the suspects will appear ... It says investigations will continue to track the buyer and tracking of the stolen chrome.”

Sergeant Nkosi admits that the name and cellphone number of the complainant and witness are not typically known to the public and sharing them raises concerns.

“Why did you need to know the witness name? ... Why did you need to know that the police have recovered pistols with serial numbers? Why did Mr Motsumi need to know that kind of information?”

Advocate Baloyi SC stated the document in question was an internal SAPS communication addressed to a General.

“This is internal SAPS communication. Somebody reporting to someone internally. You did not pull this from the media. It is an internal SAPS-write-up.”

In a telephone call, a person invited the witness to a farm to ask about a case and wanted information, which the witness found aggravating.

“you know he has invited you to the farm because he wants to ask you about this case ... he wants information ... you know he wants that information for the other side”

ADV Baloyi SC challenged General Shibiri's understanding, asserting that Sergeant Nkosi was informing him of Cat's arrival, not asking a question.

“It is not a question, General. He is reporting to you that Cat has arrived there. That is what he is telling you.”

The operation discussed is a provincial operation while the speaker is in a national position, explaining unusual involvement.

“You are at national and this is a provincial operation ... your involvement was unusual”

Lt-General Shibiri identified the two sides involved as the police on one side and perpetrators, family and friends on the other side.

“It is the police. ... It is the perpetrators, family and friends.”

Advocate Baloyi suggests the payment into Lt-Gen Shibiri's son's account was intended to hide the origin of money paid from Mr Matlala to Lt-Gen Shibiri, which Shibiri denies.

“I am trying to put to you is the payment into your son's account was to hide that Mr Matlala gave money to you. That is the suggestion...”

Advocate Baloyi raises the issue that Mr Matlala sent messages on 17th and paid money on 18th to Lt-Gen Shibiri, which creates the perception that Shibiri did things for Matlala in return for the payment, creating an appearance of impropriety.

“The messages about Mr Khawula... on the 17th and then on the 18th your payment... That looks like he is paying you to do his bidding... Do you see the potential... that Mr Matlala pays you, you are prepared to do things for him?”

Advocate Baloyi accuses Lt-Gen Shibiri of accepting money from Mr Matlala immediately after being sent a message asking for action, creating an impression of impropriety and unethical conduct.

“On the 17th he sends you a message... on the 18th he follows up with payment to you... if you were reminded to act ethically and cautiously you would not have accepted the money from him because it looks bad.”

Lieutenant General Shibiri was asked for assistance with a matter unrelated to his official portfolio, suggesting the requester believed Shibiri was a friend or a contact who could help with issues beyond his normal scope, including finance.

“he thinks you are his friend or connection ? You say the language you used was he has got a person inside . Just from the request itself , that he thinks you are a person that can assist him about matters that have nothing to do with your portfolio .”

Advocate Baloyi SC suggests that Lt-Gen Shibiri has a problematic relationship with Mr Matlala, and that Shibiri's interest in Mr Khawula is because Mr Khawula is causing problems for Shibiri's friend Mr Matlala.

“your particular interest in Mr Khawula, even as you share the media bits about him, it is because of the trouble that he is giving or threatening to your friend”

Lt-Gen Shibiri denies saying the word "nuisance" and clarifies he said "character".

“The word nuisance, I do not remember saying it. I said character.”

Advocate Baloyi SC accepts correction that Shibiri said "menace" not "nuisance" regarding Khawula being troublesome to Matlala.

“she is correcting me that you did not say nuisance, you said menace... you considered him a menace because he is troubling your friend”

Advocate Baloyi SC challenges Shibiri that he did not know about Khawula's cybercrime, crimen injuria, or murder, and that he only saw media reports and forwarded them to Sergeant Nkosi because Khawula was a menace troubling Matlala.

“You did not know anything about the cybercrime thing that he has done wrong, I knew about the crimen injuria, I knew about the murder. You have testified that you knew nothing about it, you just saw it in the newspaper, and you just forwarded it... because he is a menace, and that is why I was sending this to Nkosi.”

Baloyi argues Shibiri forwards media reports he is not involved with, no one spoke to him about, and shares them with Sergeant Nkosi because the media subject is troubling Matlala, showing a problematic relationship where Matlala uses Shibiri and others as insiders.

“you forwards stuff that you are not involved with, no one has spoken to you about... because this is the man or the person who is troubling Matlala... and that is the only basis on which you could call him a menace. It is because he is troubling your friend... there is that problematic relationship where you have branded someone about Matlala... applying to Matlala applies to Nkosi... he is innocent until proven guilty... all you know is he is part of those people that are threatening Matlala and you use your position”

Mr Matlala last spoke to the witness in 2023 and they unexpectedly met at General Sibiya's house in September, where conversation turned to the witness's financial troubles; shortly after, Mr Matlala called the witness without being prompted and offered money.

“... last time you had spoken to him was in 2023 ... encounter him at General Sibiya's house in September ... conversation ... gets to a point where you are now talking about your money troubles ... then four days later ... he calls you ... he is the one that calls to ask ... offer you money ...”