ASSISTANT DIRECTOR MAPHOSHO

The first police officers at the crime scene were doing something unlawful or unauthorized, and the Hawks were charged with their role at the crime scene.

“with regard to the first police officers being at the crime scene and that they were doing something unlawful or illegal at the crime scene, it was handled by the Hawks, and I believe they were charged for their role at that crime scene.”

Assistant Director Maphosho repeatedly said 'three containers' because of information that three containers were given preference at the harbour, but he agrees it is uncertain if those other containers were present at the same time.

“When I keep on referring to three containers, we do not know whether the other containers were there maybe the previous day or not, because the information that we received was that three containers were given preference at the harbour...”

Some statements of Captains Nortje and Warrant Officer Morris show inconsistencies with regard to tampering of exhibit bags containing drugs, which were changed when submitted to forensic science lab.

“Statements of Captain Nortje attached as TK18 and Warrant Officer Morris, TK19 have some inconsistencies with regard to tampering of exhibit bags. 820 exhibit bags were changed when they were submitted at forensic science laboratory.”

The forensic analyst only recorded the new unique forensic bag number without indicating if exhibits were taken out of their original bag, and no number reflects that movement.

“No where does he say anything that supports your saying there were exhibits taken out of their original bag. There is no number that reflects that.”

It is normal practice for forensic analysts to indicate if an exhibit was placed inside another bag due to issues like tears, but this report lacks such indication.

“If there was an issue of maybe placing another exhibit inside another new bag because of whatever reasons, maybe there was a small tear and stuff, they normally indicate as such. But with this report, there was no indication of that nature.”

They did not know who sent the brick of narcotics found in the exhibits because they did not receive the docket copy containing that information.

“We do not even know who sent that brick because we do not have, we did not get the copy of the docket. And I believe that information is supposed to be in the copy of the docket as to who took this brick at the FSL in a form of their chain statements.”

The witness did not ask questions about the brick of narcotics from people who might have known about it after being informed about it.

“No.”

They only got to know about the brick of narcotics when they received the FSL report, and did not follow up with enquiries afterwards.

“When I got to receive the FSL report.”

Warrant Officer Morris gave a statement that a bag containing exhibits was changed from one bag number to another during the chain of custody process.

“This bag was changed to this bag... That is when he gave me this statement saying this bag was changed to this bag.”

According to the SAPS Academy booking process on 2021-07-19, the exhibits were intact with no tampering during sealing and booking from Booysens to FSL Silverton, escorted by Gauteng Highway Patrol.

“On Monday, 2021-07-19 together with Warrant Officer Morris, proceeded to SAPS Academy, Pretoria West, booked out the exhibits that were kept for safekeeping, proceeded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, FSL, and handed in the exhibits to be analysed. We were escorted by Gauteng Highway Patrol. During the sealing of the exhibits into the exhibits bags, booking them at SAPS Booysens, booking it from SAPS Booysens to SAPS Academy, Pretoria West and to FSL Silverton, Pretoria, the bags were intact and no exhibits was tampered with.”

Assistant Director Maposho confirmed he asked Warrant Officer Morris and Captain Nortje for statements during the investigation but did not speak to the analyst or Modise.

“Yes, I have, Commissioner. When I requested his statement, yes I did. ... I have when I obtained his statement, Commissioner. ... No, I did not speak to the analyst, Commissioner.”

Assistant Director Maphosho states that the exhibits bags were never tampered with and this was explained in paragraph 7,10 of a statement given to him.

“he wrote paragraph 7,10 saying that the exhibits was never tampered with”

Assistant Director Maphosho confirmed that they put one bag inside another, a new bag inside an old bag, during evidence handling.

“you say , that we put the one bag inside the other , a new one”

Assistant Director Maphosho agrees that it is unfortunate that there was no photographic evidence of bags being changed or repacked, which is a procedural flaw.

“It is just unfortunate that we do not have any , the copies of that . We do not know whether it was ever photographed at this time when they were changing these bags and putting the old bag into another bag .”

Assistant Director Maphosho acknowledges he did not ask Warrant officer Morriss directly to explain the bag discrepancies, relying only on Morriss's prior statement.

“did you ask him directly to explain the bags , and you did not . You rely on him saying the exhibits were not tampered with , and you say that contradicts .”

Assistant Director Maphosho confirms that the statement given by Warrant Officer Morriss predates the case under investigation and was accepted by him.

“the statement that he gave to you , in fact , existed prior to even the case that you are investigating existed . Did you see that ?”

Assistant Director Maphosho accepted the old statement from Warrant Officer Morriss that relates to transporting the drugs, even though it was not freshly recorded after their conversation.

“You accepted the statement as he gave it to you .”

Assistant Director Maphosho quotes paragraph 51 of his statement, noting that exhibit bags should be changed only if damaged and that the damaged bag should be placed inside the new bag with a photographer present, and this procedure was not followed.

“One will wonder as to why the exhibit bags were changed . According to my experience , if the exhibit bag is damaged , you must place the damaged bag inside the new bag , and the photographer must be present to take pictures . In this case , it did not happen like that , and it had created the”

A warning statement is a statement obtained from alleged suspects which involves questioning them about an alleged offence; it is a prima facie case basis for them to answer.

“A warning statement , it is a statement that we obtain from the alleged suspects . They are called warning statement . ... Yes , there was . ... We are entitled to ask you questions concerning your alleged involvement in the commission of an alleged offence”

Assistant Director Maphosho requests a summary of actions or omissions he may have committed to responsibly provide a further statement, referencing a prior witness statement in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021 and cautioning against abuse of the process by criminals in that case.

“Please provide me with a summary of the actions/omissions that you believe I may have committed or omitted for you to address this letter to me. I require this to be able to responsibly provide you with a further statement to the one I have already provided the police. As you know, I have made a witness statement in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021 and I am not sure if you have obtained a copy of that statement through the channels available to you. I trust that the DPP official directing you in this investigation has been in consultation with the State Advocate in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021 to avoid that your complaint/ss cutter or prejudice the criminal trial against them by opening a false parallel charge against police officials on the scene. You should know that this is often the tactic employed by corrupt law enforcement officials with an understanding of the criminal justice system and concomitant legislations.”

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 clarifies that calling for a warning statement is voluntary and a suspect may choose not to provide it, but complains that IPID should have requested the statement formally rather than leave it to chance.

“Calling for a warning statement says you may or may not. And he might as well have chosen not to give them. But there is this statement that they could request and they should have requested. That is really my issue, and not to depend or rely on him coming or not coming ultimately. That is as high as I could, I am trying to take it with the Assistant Director, Commissioner.”

The referral to the NPA for prosecution decision was signed by Assistant Director Maphosho and approved by Mr T Keefelakae.

“the referral is signed by you on page 159 and it is approved by one Mr T Keefelakae.”

The version of the allegations summary by Assistant Director Maphosho mimics exactly the complainants' version and does not reflect the version of the suspects.

“It appears to me, and I have tried to compare it with even your original memorandum sent to your Executive Director, it seems to mimic exactly what the complainant told you. And I say so because it does not at any stage seem to reflect the version of the suspects.”

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”

The decision to restrict the investigation report to the standard form without investigator opinions was taken by IPID management.

“It is the decision that was taken by the management, Commissioners”

Assistant Director Maphosho states he did not place Acting Deputy Provincial Inspector Mashaba on duty for the activity at the time of his arrest and was not informed about the activity beforehand.

“I can confirm that I did not place Acting Deputy Provincial Inspector Mashaba on duty for the activity he was performing at the time of his arrest, and he did not even inform me about it.”

Assistant Director Maphosho acknowledges that Mashaba's supervisor stated he did not know about the operation that Mashaba was conducting on the day in question.

“I know of the fact that the supervisor of Mashaba indicated that he did not know about the operation that Mashaba was conducting on that particular day.”

Assistant Director Maphosho rejects the recommendation that Brigadier Sekgobela should be charged despite evidence and believes the recommendation is not supported by the facts discussed.

“I want to put to you that in light of what we have discussed and the lack of evidence in support of that conclusion, that recommendation of yours is not supported by the facts that are at least discussed with you today. Can you accept that? No, I do not accept that, Commissioner.”

The alleged three containers given preference at Durban Harbour refers to an unofficial tolerance during load shedding allowing certain containers to pass without full checks.

“When he was explaining, I think it is that time when as a country we used to have load shedding and stuff like that . I do not know how it works at the harbour, but he indicated that during that period when there was a load shedding , those containers were allowed to pass . Something like that , something along those lines .”

A statement was not taken from Mr Nku because the informer status was accepted without further verification, despite uncertainties about the truth of the information given.

“When a person says – I know, Commissioner Baloyi, you spoke about that in lengthy yesterday. When a person indicates to us that he is an informer, we took it as it is . Even the way he was getting this information, it was something else because he was talking about this cybercrime hacking and all that . I think from the document that I have sent you, that was the copy of my diary, some of the information, I have noted those information down . So we did not obtain Nku’s statement . However, the information that he was giving, like the issue of 11 containers, we wanted to test as to whether he was telling the truth or not . Yes, we did follow up upon that kind of information and indeed , Scania was expecting 11 containers at that particular time . However, the issue of him saying three were given preference, we do not know about that .”

The Assistant Director provided a supplementary affidavit concerning security concerns in a request.

“the Assistant Director had also given us a supplementary affidavit, but then ubofit, it really deals with these security concerns that she raises in her request”

Assistant Director Maphosho confirmed the signature on a supplementary statement they provided.

“Can you confirm that this is your supplementary statement and on page 6 that is your signature?”

Assistant Director Maphosho confirmed the statement and the signature on the supplementary affidavit.

“I confirm the statement, Commissioners. I confirm the signature.”

The Assistant Director position at IPID is equivalent to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel within SAPS.

“Yes, the equivalent with SAPS it is Lieutenant Colonel”

In 2020, the speaker was transferred to IPID National Office to work at the National Specialized Investigative Team (NSIT), handling high-profile and complex cases reported to IPID.

“In 2020, I was transferred to IPID National Office working at National Specialized Investigative Team that is called NSIT in short. It is a unit within IPID that deals with the high-profile cases and the complex cases that are reported at IPID”

High-profile cases are classified based on involvement of high-ranking officers or media attention.

“We classify high-profile cases in terms of the suspects involved, if it is high-ranking officers, or it is a case that is on the media. The rank of the person involved and the media enquiries, we classify those as high-profile cases”

The Aeroton case is considered a high-profile case due to the rank of the people involved and the complainants against whom the complaint was laid.

“It was a high-profile case. The rank of the people that were involved. Yes. Against whom the complaint was laid? Yes”

The complaint case was registered under Section 28(1)(h) of the IPID Act with approval from the Executive Director or delegate and assigned to the speaker for investigation.

“The case was opened at Booysens Police Station and registered as Booysens CAS 252/10/2021 ... The complaint was referred by Executive Director ... registered as Section 28(1)(h) of IPID Act”

DPCI refused to provide a docket, thus preventing checking of other related cases.

“we were never given a chance to check the other case because the DPCI refused with a docket”

The Commanders of Phakula and Magane were aware of and involved in communication about the operation on the day of the incident, indicating their knowledge of the activities of their members.

“the Commander of Phakula said he had the knowledge of what Phakula was going to be doing on that, on the day of the incident. And also the Commander of Magane gave a statements saying Magane called him and informed him about the operation”

The policing oversight body investigates Metropolitan police officers but not Gauteng traffic officers, indicating a limitation in jurisdiction.

“No, not the Gauteng traffic officers, the Metropolitan police officers.”

Assistant Director Maphosho inquired about whether certain police officers were on duty and whether their commanders were aware of the operation, but did not inquire about jurisdictional authority or whether the officers were authorized to be at certain locations.

“I enquired about whether they were on duty on that particular day and ... We enquired whether they were on duty and whether their Commanders knew about the operation.”

Assistant Director Maphosho acknowledges that in this particular case the complainants are police officers, meaning investigative procedures were different than normal due to the involvement of police reporting the matter.

“it was the police officers who reported this matter. However, we have two cases. We have got the case, the 98 case and the 252 case... so we only dealt with case 252.”

Assistant Director Maphosho recalls that in a meeting with the NHl as a team, the message was conveyed that General Lebeya said they must investigate without the copies of the docket.

“I remember we had the meeting with the N H I as a team , as the N C team , and the message was conveyed to me that General Lebeya said we must investigate without the copies of the docket”

The investigation into the docket was an internal decision taken to proceed without the requested copies of the docket.

“ultimately, this was an internal decision to say , look … . It was”

Although efforts were made, it was not enough because they were supposed to have opened the case earlier.

“But not try enough , because we are supposed to have opened the case”

Arresting four individuals shifted the focus from identifying the real owner of the drugs to punishing the initial four arrests.

“because with them arresting these four, they are shifting the whole focus of getting the real owner of the drugs into these four people”

Police arrested people without knowing the real owner of the drugs, indicating they might have known more than they disclosed and therefore focused on punishing the first four arrested individuals.

“the police were supposed to have opened an enquiry because nobody knew who was the owner of the said drugs ... but for them to arrest people without having information ... they knew who ... so they must punish this first four with arrest”

On the day in question, no one was supposed to have been arrested as the proper procedures for securing and testing the exhibits were not yet completed.

“on that day, no one was supposed to have been arrested”

The arrest of the driver was premature as the driver did not know about the contents of the container, supporting that no arrest should have taken place that day.

“when I interviewed the driver, it was clear that the driver did not know about what was in the container ... no one was supposed to have been arrested”

The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) does not have the mandate to investigate unlawful arrests.

“IPID does not have mandate to investigate unlawful arrest.”