Hearing day 116

Sergeant Mabula Patrick Sape was on duty with his narcotic dog on 9 July 2021 at Aeroton and was called to assist in a drug search of a container.

“He stated that he is a Sergeant in the South African Police Service attached to Silverton K9 unit. On Friday, 2021-7-09 at about 09:00 he was officially on duty with his narcotic dog and working with Sergeant Phakula when they received a call requesting their assistance with their narcotic dog at Aeroton.”

General Khan confronted the officers at the Aeroton scene and asked about their involvement, instructing them to write statements. They were refused permission to leave until photographs of their vehicle were taken, and were released around 13:30 without searching the premises.

“They were confronted by General Khan who asked them about their involvement. General Khan instructed them to write their statement regarding their involvement. They were refused to leave the scene until the photographer took photos of their vehicle inside and outside . They were released at around 13:30 without searching the premises.”

Lieutenant Colonel Maluleke was subpoenaed to attend a crime scene because the container was a duplicate of his inquiry file about drugs, but the inquiry file is missing and could not be located.

“He further asked if I still have Lieutenant Colonel Maluleke's from DPCI in Pretoria and asked me to also subpoena Lieutenant Colonel Maluleke as the container is a duplicate of his enquiry file of which I did subpoena Lieutenant Colonel Maluleke and promised to attend. ... I was told that it was missing. It was handled by a certain Sergeant, I forgot his name, and he could not locate the file.”

Inquiry files are handled manually and not registered on the SAPS system, making it possible for files to be manufactured or destroyed manually.

“My understanding with the enquiry file, Commissioners, they only do things manually. They do not register the file on the system. ... So even if there was no file before, I can simply create it because I do it manually. And if I want to destroy it, I can simply destroy the one that I created manually. ... That is true Commissioners. Something like that can happen.”

Sergeant Phakula and Sergeant Sape, both originating from Pretoria, were called to attend a crime scene in the south of Johannesburg with their narcotic dog, which is considered a special unit.

“In your understanding, or may be assist the Commission, what would have been the relevance of this enquiry file that Phakula is asked to ask Maluleke about? ... I believe that that narcotic dog may be it was only at Silverton. ... Did you make anything of the fact that both Phakula and Sape were originating from, they were called all the way from Pretoria?”

Assistant Director Maposho accepted that assuming only one narcotic dog was available in Gauteng province was without sufficient factual basis, as Gauteng is a large area with multiple dog units.

“The assumption was now was without much basis though, because to think of just this one, I will try to pronounce dogs often. Gauteng and its environs is quite huge. It cannot be that you thought that this one dog was the only dog available. Surely not. ... Do you accept? I accept Commissioners.”

Assistant Director Maphosho admitted the situation was suspicious but did not act on it because normally they do not investigate their complainants unless information requires follow up.

“Yes, it was suspicious, Commissioners.”

Assistant Director Maphosho accepted that the complainant contacted his commander and was granted permission, but found the involvement of the two Phakulas from Pretoria to the south of Johannesburg suspicious.

“I accepted Commissioners, however, something that gave me comfort is the fact that he indicated that he contacted his Commander and the Commander gave permission.”

Assistant Director Maphosho said they do not normally investigate their complainants but take statements and follow-up if necessary.

“We do not normally investigate our complainants. What we do ... take the statement, if there is a need for us to follow upon the information, we do that.”

Assistant Director Maphosho admitted that they do not just accept information as it is; they obtain a few statements to verify it.

“Not really that we just accept information as it is, hence we obtain few statements.”

Assistant Director Maphosho agreed it is important to critically interrogate complainant information to avoid wrong recommendations.

“I agree, Commissioners.”

Assistant Director Maphosho acknowledged that piling up statements is meaningless if one is not critical of the information.

“I agree, Commissioners.”

The Phakulas are brothers: Warrant Officer Phakula is the older brother of Sergeant Phakula.

“The testimony is that they are, in fact, brothers with the Warrant Officer being the older brother of the, for the Sergeant Phakula.”

Only Warrant Officer Rikhotso stopped the suspects from employing the Dog Unit or the dog named Rossi at the crime scene.

“the person who stopped them from employing the Dog Unit or the dog that they came with, I think the name is Rossi, it is Warrant Officer Rikhotso, no one else.”

Assistant Director Maphosho did not investigate the relationship between the two Phakulas, only asked if they knew each other and was told they were family, likely brothers.

“No, I did not. I think I asked if they know each other, and I think they are family.”

General Khan interfered in the crime scene by instructing not to move the suspect's vehicle and requiring statements to be written, thus making them unable to work properly at the crime scene.

“General Khan interfered in the whole crime scene. It was his interference that made them unable to work at the crime scene.”

General Khan works for Crime Intelligence and does not handle the crime scene but gave instructions at the crime scene interfering with the investigation.

“General Khan works for Crime Intelligence, he does not handle the crime scene. So, in him being at the crime scene, giving instructions as to what must happen and when, it is interference.”

Warrant Officer Magane and Chief Mashaba conducted an unauthorized operation with alleged informant Nku and ignored the nearest police station Booysens by not calling them for assistance.

“If they were called by the police to assist ... now, you have the two of them with this alleged informant Nku, conducting what is clearly an unauthorized operation ... Magane and Mashaba ignored the nearest police station, which is Booysens. They did not call them to say, there are drugs in your vicinity, please dispatch the relevant people to assist.”

Warrant Officer Magane and Chief Mashaba do not deal with drug busts and have no business being involved in a drug bust on their own, only assisting if called by police.

“Warrant Officer Magane and Chief Mashaba do not deal with drug busts. They have no business being in a drug bust on their own, just the two of them.”

SAPS generals arrived at the unauthorized operation and instructed officers to stop and leave their cars, stopping the unlawful activity.

“SAPS Generals, three of them, arriving there and seeing what is clearly an unlawful and unauthorized operation and they tell them to stop and go into their cars and stop whatever they are doing.”

Three Generals, General Kadwa, General Khan, and Mr Mosikili (another General, Lekalakala), intervened at a crime scene where police officers were doing something unauthorized and unlawful.

“if that is the picture, what is it about what these three Generals did, being General Kadwa, General Khan, Mr Mosikili, who was the other General who was there? There were three. There was another general who was, Lekalakala.”

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.”

General Khan interfered at the crime scene by not allowing or disturbing the Dog Unit not to work, and this interference was different from just preventing the search of one container.

“But for General Khan not allowing or disturbing the Dog Unit not to work at the crime scene, it was something else, because if now we have got this information that suggests that it was more than one container that was supposed to have been searched...His interference at that crime scene was something else.”

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...”

The same statement says some drugs and guns were suspected in three containers out of 14 containers at the property.

“three were suspected to have a mix of guns and narcotics.”

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...”

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...”

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.”

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.”

Warrant Officer Morriss lied about putting the original exhibits with their original bags inside another bag, as forensic analyst statements do not support this claim.

“Asistant Director Maphosho said, Morriss is lying because Captain Nortje's statement does not mention changing the bags.”

There was suspicion and investigation into the changing of exhibit bags involving Warrant Officer Morriss and Captain Nortje, because of discrepancies between forensic reports and statements.

“We noticed the drugs were removed from Booysens and later were at Pretoria College, with rumors of drugs stolen; wanted a separate investigation on the changing of exhibit bags.”

Management decided to have a conversation about the bag changing issue but no concrete action or investigation followed, despite explanations from Morriss.

“Management decided they had a conversation and nothing came of it; Morriss gave an explanation but no investigation was done with forensic analyst.”

Changing exhibit bags potentially constitutes tampering with exhibits and defeating the ends of justice, warranting discipline and prosecution.

“Sounds like a serious case of tampering with exhibits and defeating the ends of justice; anyone guilty should be disciplined and prosecuted.”

Statements and forensic reports contradict about the number and bags of bricks of drugs sent to forensic lab, causing suspicion of missing or stolen exhibits.

“The analyst report talks about 715 bricks received at forensic; Morriss and SAP13 count 700 bricks plus one sent later without SAP13 number; concerned about discrepancy.”

Warrant Officer Morriss is not included in disciplinary recommendations though there were serious allegations against him regarding changing exhibit bags.

“There is only one sentence in the report about bag changing issue and no recommendation against Morriss, only those allegedly involved at the scene.”

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.”

General Flynn explained that one brick of narcotics stuck inside the bag due to adhesive, causing it to be discovered later after other suspected cocaine was found and removed.

“That one brick was discovered after the rest of the suspected Cocaine had been found and taken out... because of something adhesive that was inside the bag, this one brick had got stuck onto that adhesive substance inside the bag. That is the explanation we, or rather the testimony we heard.”

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.”

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.”

Captain Nortje did not mention any exchange of bags, only booking exhibits from Booysens to SAPS Academy for safekeeping.

“Captain Nortje did not talk about any changing of the bags. He only talked about booking the exhibits from Booysens to SAPS Academy for safekeeping.”

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 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”

Adv. Baloyi alleges that the bags were changed completely, removing the old bag and placing the exhibit into a new bag, suggesting a possible discrepancy or incomplete questioning of Nortje.

“What they did is they changed the bags completely . They took out the old20 bag and put the exhibit in a new bag . That is what you are saying . Now , you do not specifically , at least Nortje does not say , we did that or we did not , which suggests to me that , or which may suggest that a direct question was not asked of him .”

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 indicates that there are two different forensic bag numbers SAP13 and another one submitted to the lab and that this discrepancy was not directly questioned to Captain Nortje.

“we now have a new bag number that does not correspond with the SAP13 number . Explain that . You did not put that kind of a direct question ? It does not seem my you did . Whatever you may have asked him , it does not seem you said to him , now there are two different bag numbers , SAP13 and the one that you submit to the lab . Explain that difference .”

Assistant Director Maphosho confirms that the changing or repacking of bags was done in the presence of members of the case management team at the Pretoria FSL, negating possibility of tampering.

“they say the bags were never tampered with ... happening at reception in the presence of the case management members at FSL . So there cannot be a possibility of them tampering with the bags”

Assistant Director Maphosho states the issue of bag changing needs to be tested further since photographic evidence is lacking and clarification is needed from the Warrant Officer involved.

“... it was an issue that needs to be tested , because remember when this thing of changing this , especially this number of bags , they know very well that it needs to be photographed ... I was saying it was an issue of us confirming when we are investigating this case , because this is Warrant Officer Morriss who took the exhibits to forensic ...”

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 confirms that Warrant Officer Morriss and Captain Nortje were together when the exhibits were taken to forensic lab, despite discrepancies about the bags.

“Yes , it was Warrant Officer Morris and Captain Nortje .”

Assistant Director Khumalo argues that no speculative statements should be made without confirming with FSL because they know how drug exhibits should be handled and would not allow something like changing bags without approval.

“I have not confirmed with FSL whether what he says is true or not and that is where it should have been left . until you have confirmed with FSL that this did not happen in their presence and they did not approve of it , because I am assuming that FSL knows how drug exhibits should be handled . And FSL case management team would not allow something like that to happen in their presence , especially when you are dealing with exhibits that are being booked at FSL .”

Assistant Director Maphosho agrees that the statement by Morriss explaining the condition of the bags is not contradictory to Nortje's assertion that the bags were not tampered with, clarifying that damage occurred due to handling and transport.

“... the few unique forensic bags was damaged from the handling of the drug exhibits . The weight of the drugs in those bags and the moving of the drugs from Boysen to Pretoria West Training College and to the FSL . He says they suffered damage because of that . Now that is no contradiction to Nortje saying that they were not tampered with .”

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 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”

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 .”

There is concern that the drug items submitted at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) might not be the same as those collected at the crime scene, with drugs taken from Booysens SAPS to Pretoria West SAPS College for safekeeping instead of directly to the FSL, and no paper trail for Pretoria West storage as they were not booked into SAP 13 store.

“impression that what was submitted at FSL might not be the same items collected at the crime scene . It is also noted from their statement that the drugs were taken from Booysens SAPS to Pretoria West SAPS College for safekeeping . One will wonder as to why drugs were kept at Pretoria West SAPS College rather than being taken straight to FSL”

On 2023-06-05, letters requesting warning statements from alleged suspects General Kadwa, General Khan, Brigadier Sekgobela, Colonel Steyn, and Lieutenant Colonel Sebola were drafted, containing allegations and questions that the suspects must answer, with a deadline of 2023-06-22.

“On 2023-06-05, the letter requesting warning statement from alleged suspect mentioned by the complainant were drafted . The request for warning statement was for General Kadwa , General Khan , Brigadier Sekgobela , Colonel Steyn , and Lieutenant Colonel Sebola . The letter had the allegations and questions that they must answer . They were requested to submit their warning statement on or before 2023-6-22”

On 2023-06-07 and 2023-06-08 various letters requesting warning statements were hand-delivered to the Crime Intelligence Office in Pretoria for General Khan and to Germiston DPCI office for General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela, Colonel Steyn, and Lieutenant Colonel Sebola.

“On 2023-06-07 , the request letter was hand-delivered to Crime Intelligence Office in Pretoria for General Khan . On 2023-06-08 , the other request letter was hand-delivered at Germiston DPCI office for General Kadwa . On the same day , the other letter delivered at Germiston DPCI for Brigadier Sekgobela , Colonel Steyn , and Lieutenant Colonel Sebola”

The warning letters sent to General Khan and other individuals are standard and similar.

“that you sent to General Khan , and these letters that you sent to all different individuals , they are all standard and similar , you accept that ?”

Warning statements from General Khan, General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela, Colonel Steyn, and Lieutenant Colonel Sebola were obtained from IPID offices between 2023-11-15 and 2024-02-06.

“On 2023-11-15 , warning statement of General Khan was obtained at Crime Intelligence office . On 2023-11-27 , warning statement of General Kadwa , Brigadier Sekgobela and Colonel Steyn were obtained at IPID offices . On 2024-02-06 , warning statement of Lieutenant Colonel Sebola was obtained at IPID offices”

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”

IPID had information indicating General Khan may have been involved in the commission of an offence on 9 July 2021 at Aeroton involving defeating the ends of justice either by action or omission.

“The IPID have certain information in its disposal , indicating that you may have been involved in the commission of an offence committed on the 9th of July 2021 at Aeroton , either by action or omission , defeating the ends of justice .”

Assistant Director Maphosho posed detailed questions to General Khan concerning the crime scene attendance, knowledge about the crime scene, the complaint, roles in the investigation, arrest at Booysens on case CAS 98/7/2021, charges against the suspect, information about the truck driver and cargo receiver, the origin of the drugs, and the outcome of case Booysens CAS 8/7/2021.

“On or about 9th July 2021 , did you attend the crime scene at Aeroton ? ... What was the role at the crime scene and throughout the entire investigations ? Who effected the arrest at the scene of Booysens on CAS 98/7/2021 and what was the charges brought against the suspect and what informed the charges ? ... Was the origin of the drugs ever established during your investigations ? What happened to the case in question , Booysens CAS 8/7/2021 ?”

Assistant Director Maphosho states that the questions posed to General Khan seem to be more a fishing expedition than targeting specific allegations of defeating the ends of justice.

“I am saying in this case they are more of a fishing expedition than pointed questions trying to solicit a pointed response to deal with an allegation of defeating the ends of justice .”

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.”

Advocate Mosikili expresses concern that the summary of allegations does not appear as investigative questions directed to the suspect and that there is no request to provide the statement mentioned in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021 in the response letter.

“I have difficulties with that summary not being aimed at or at least appearing as investigative questions that ought to be put to a suspect. And then at paragraph 3, he has told you that he has a statement or he has provided a statement before under the CAS number 97/7/2021. Why, in your response, why is it that you do not ask for him to provide you with that statement as well?”

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.”

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.”

Advocate Mosikili criticizes that IPID’s response states only that they do not have the statement and leaves it hanging without expressing wanting or requesting the statement which they deem important.

“You do not say in this regard when you come, bring that statement or please give us a statement while you are coming to consult with us. Is there a reason why you do not ask that, because you do have the tools to ask or to demand even? ... You just simply tell him we do not have the statement. And I would have expected at least IPID to say we want that statement, whether you bring it before you come for an interview or you bring it with you, but we want it because we regard it as important.”

Advocate Khumalo questions whether technicalities such as timing or possession of a SAPS statement matter given that General Khan complied with IPID’s instruction to give a warning statement.

“Mr Mosikili, seeing that IPID’s response was that you should come and be interviewed and make a warning statement or give a warning statement, and he does go and he does give the statement, do those technicalities matter, whether they got hold of the SAPS statement or not, because their instruction to General Khan in response to his letter was you must come. We want a warning statement and you must give a warning statement. And he did go and he did give a warning statement.”

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.”

An application for legal representation was made to the IPID before statements could be submitted.

“kindly be advised that an application for legal representation will be made and as the process will require approval, I will notify your office of the availability to submit the warning statements.”

It is normal practice for police to request legal representation before submitting statements to IPID.

“this is what we normally receive at IPID when we investigate the police. They normally request their legal to write or to represent them or to advise them before they can write a statement.”

The Booysen CAS 252/10/2021 was referred to the National Prosecuting Authority on 2024-06-20 for decision.

“After collection of all relevant statements, on 2024-06-20, the Booysen CAS 252/10/2021 was referred to National Prosecuting Authority for decision.”

On 2024-06-28, a certificate of decline to prosecute was issued citing internal disputes between law enforcement units and inability to prove intent to defeat or obstruct justice.

“On 2024-06-28, a certificate of decline to prosecute was issued stating the reasons that: [1] This matter emanated from tripling internal disputes between different law enforcement units, which warrants mediation and not prosecution. [2] The State will not be able to prove intention to defeat or obstruct the course of justice.”

The case was recalled by the NPA and officers decided not to continue with prosecution due to lack of prospects for success.

“The case was recalled by NPA and the other remarks were made on 2024-11-20, that these officers decided not to continue with the prosecution in this matter, given the fact that there are no reasonable prospects of successful prosecution.”

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.”

Major General Khan, Major General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela, Colonel Steyn, and Lieutenant Colonel Sebola are suspects recommended to be prosecuted in relation to the Booysen CAS 252/10/2021.

“You confirm that the suspect that you maintained should be prosecuted here, are those suspects appearing on the subject of suspects, which is Major General Khan, Major General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela, Colonel Steyn, and Lieutenant Colonel Sebola.”

Summary of allegations regarding an incident on 8 and 9 July 2021 involving Chief Mashaba receiving information on suspected drugs, assistance in escorting the truck, discovery of drugs, arrest of driver and recipient, involvement of Dog Unit, LCRC, Hawks, and later arrest and charge of Chief Mashaba and others for drug dealing.

“It is alleged that on Thursday, 8 July 2021, Chief Mashaba received an information about the suspected drugs that were to be transported from Durban to Alberton. The following day, on the 9th of July 2021, the information was followed and Chief Mashaba asked for assistance and he was assisted by Warrant Officer Magane and Warrant Officer Phakula. The truck was then escorted to the destination at Aeroton where the container was opened at the receiving bay. While searching the container, the drugs were found. The driver of the truck and the person who were to receive the cargo were placed under arrest. The Dog Unit and the LCRC were summoned at the scene while still compiling the docket. While compiling the docket, the Hawks member arrived at the scene. Chief Mashaba and members who recovered the drugs were later arrested as per Booysen CAS 8/07/2021 and charged for dealing in drugs. The driver of the truck and the person who was to receive the cargo were then released. The Hawks members found the Booysens Police who attended to a complaint and have given their feedback indicating all was in order and that the police have recovered the drugs and the suspects were arrested.”

The investigation regarding the prosecution decision on Major General Khan, Major General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela, Colonel Steyn, and Lieutenant Colonel Sebola is complete with all necessary statements and reports attached for consideration.

“The investigation is complete and all necessary statements / technical or expert reports are attached in the docket for your attention in accordance with Regulation 5 (1) of the IPID Regulations ...”

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.”

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”

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 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”

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”

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”

ADV Khumalo references General Khan's statement to IPID beginning at page 99 and focussing on page 101, which alleges dishonesty by Mashaba regarding drugs, but does not accept it as fact yet.

“I am going to refer you to General Khan's statement to IPID ... It starts much earlier ... The point I want to make before we even get to the statement, I am not suggesting he is telling the truth, and I am not accepting his version at this stage. I am simply saying this is what was before you ... He says at paragraph 7, 18, 19, let us start at 17: " This version of Mashaba is dishonest on so many levels. Firstly, when I arrived there, they had already moved the drugs”

No one was arrested during General Khan's visit to the scene, including the truck driver and recipient of the drugs.

“no one was arrested during my visit to the scene , and certainly not the truck driver , nor the recipient of the drugs”

The area was not treated as a crime scene and no police arrived upon the request of Mashaba and his crew.

“the area was never treated as a crime scene , and while I was there , no police arrived on request of Mashaba and his crew”

Mashaba and his crew were about to leave the scene with the drugs on their vehicle before honest policemen arrived.

“Mashaba and his crew were on the verge of leaving the scene with the drugs on their bakkie had the honest policemen not arrived”

Mashaba got three different police men from three different units to assist him in the operation, but none of their commanders were briefed about it.

“he got three different policemen from three different units to assist him in this operation , while not even one of their Commanders had been briefed about the operation”

General Khan was at the crime scene and this raises concerns because as a Crime Intelligence officer, he is not supposed to be there or handle the crime scene.

“General Khan , he knows that he is not supposed to be at the crime scene . He cannot even handle the crime scene , but here at least he is putting himself at the crime scene”

General Khan and Kadwa attended the crime scene but were unable to explain their role.

“Two Generals , namely Major General Khan and Kadwa , attended the crime scene . However , they were unable to explain as to their role at the crime scene”

The complainant and three others were arrested on 2021-07-09 and charged with dealing in drugs as per Booysen CAS 98/07/2021.

“the complainant and three others were arrested on 2021-07-09 and were charged with dealing in drugs as per Booysen CAS 98/07/2021”

Captain Sebola arrested police officials on the sole basis that they could not explain how they recovered the drugs.

“Captain Sebola arrested the police officials solely based on the issue that he said they failed to explain as to how they recovered the drugs.”

General Khan did not allow the Dog Unit to work at the crime scene because he did not want more drugs to be recovered at the premises.

“changing the forensic bags was not followed. The high-ranking officer, General Khan, did not allow the Dog Unit to work at the crime scene as if he did not want more drugs to be recovered at the premises.”

Chief Mashaba contacted Gauteng Provincial Commissioner General Mawela for assistance at the crime scene due to difficulties, who in turn arranged Major General Mthombeni to assist.

“The complainant, Mr Mashaba, called Gauteng Provincial Commissioner General Mawela when he was faced with some difficulties at the crime scene and he arranged Major General Mthombeni to assist him.”

On 9 July 2021, Sergeant Mogobo called for urgent assistance at the Scania warehouse in Aeroton where several police officers from Crime Intelligence, DPCI and Gauteng Traffic Department were trying to remove the contents of a container suspected of containing drugs.

“On 9 July 2021, at about 09:50, I received a telephone call from Sergeant Mogobo of Gauteng Highway Patrol. He informed me that he was at the Scania warehouse in Aeroton and that there were several police men who claimed to be from Crime Intelligence, DPCI and Gauteng Traffic Department who were trying to remove the contents of a container that he suspected to contain drugs and was supposed to be delivered to the Scania warehouse.”

Police members have in the past been involved in drug trafficking including removing drugs from a scene without following procedure.

“It is unfortunate but true that police members have in the past involved themselves in drug trafficking, including removing drugs from a scene after it had been found without following procedure.”

There were people from Gauteng Traffic Department trying to remove contents of a container suspected to contain drugs, intention to remove those drugs together with Chief Mashaba.

“there were people from Gauteng Traffic Department who were trying to remove the contents of a container that he suspected to contain drugs. That is true because Warrant Officer Magane testified before the Commission that that was their intention to remove those drugs together with Chief Mashaba.”

Major Generals Khan and Kadwa attended the crime scene but are unable to explain their role.

“Two Generals, namely Major General Khan and Kadwa, attended the crime scene. However, they are unable to explain as to their role at the crime scene.”

General Khan gave a comprehensive statement explaining how he got to the scene, what he did when he got the first call and his role at the crime scene.

“Khan has given you a comprehensive statement where he explains how he got to the scene, what he did when he got the first call, according to him. He received a call, and these are the steps that he took. He gives you names of people. He tells you he arrived at the scene. So you ask him for a statement. He gives you a statement. He says, and then I got to the scene, and here is what I did until I left. There is an explanation of his role at the scene.”

General Khan was given instructions and took over managing the crime scene upon arriving there.

“I was expecting General Khan to indicate that when he arrived at the crime scene, this is what he did at the crime scene. And is sue of him giving instructions because there is a statement of – I do not remember whether it was Mr Riekert, who indicated that when General Khan arrived at the scene, there was an order. He is the one who took over the crime scene and made sure that everything now, it is in, there was an order.”

It is incorrect to say Generals Khan and Kadwa are unable to explain their role at the crime scene as Khan provided a full statement with all details.

“And I am really raising with you that it is not correct to say he was unable to explain when he is given you an explanation, it is not a correct reflection of – because I imagine this, if we did not have General Khan's statement and we had your line that says he was unable to explain, in everyday language it means you never got an explanation from him about what he did when he was at the scene. So I am quarrelling with you or I am raising with you that it is not correct to say he was unable to explain.”

General Khan called Colonel Sephungu who was unaware of the operation and Chief Director Mayisela who also did not know about the operation, concluding that the operation by Police officers was unauthorized because their superiors were not informed.

“On page 100, he gives you a blow-by-blow of what he did when he got there. For example, the last sentence in paragraph 11, he says he called Colonel Sephungu who told him that he is not aware of this operation that Phakula is busy with. He says in paragraph 3: "I called Chief Director Mayisela, who is Mashaba's Commander. He also did not know about the operation. So he gives you all the steps that he took to arrive at his conclusion that what these two people were doing was unlawful and unauthorised because their superiors did not even know about the operation."”

General Khan was called to a crime scene because there were suspicions that people claiming to be Crime Intelligence were stealing drugs, and he explained his role at the scene in his affidavit though the report omitted this.

“he has explained why he was there in the first place. He was called because people raised concerns that there is a suspicion that people who claim to be Crime Intelligence may be stealing drugs ... when in his affidavit to you, he has explained his role at the scene”

General Khan was present at a scene where a bakkie was loaded with black bags suspected to contain drugs, but the officers on site claimed they did not know the bakkie had been loaded.

“When I arrived on the scene, there were many police officers. I also saw that the bakkie was fully loaded with black bags … When I asked about the offloading of the suspected drugs, they said they did not know that the bakkie had been loaded”

General Khan took steps to ensure nothing illegal happened at the scene because of concerns over suspected drug theft.

“I needed to make sure that nothing illegal happens at that scene”

General Khan assessed the situation at the scene and concluded the case was appropriate for the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation to be involved, but the report did not reflect this assessment.

“He assessed the situation and came to a conclusion that this was an appropriate case for them to be involved in ... your report ... does not take these issues into account”

General Kadwa, Provincial Head, Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, was involved in overseeing the response to the transitional drug trafficking case and was satisfied the matter fell within DPCI's mandate after being briefed by Major General Khan.

“I have overall responsibility to oversee the prevention, combating, and investigation of national priority offences ... I can confirm that the case relating to the transitional drug trafficking is a actual mandate of the SANEB ... After receiving the briefing from Major General Khan, I was satisfied that this specific case was within the mandate of the DPCI”

General Khan remained at the crime scene premises for the rest of the day but did not participate directly in the investigation there.

“I remained at the Scania premises for the rest of the day but did not directly participate in the actual investigation at the crime scene”

General Mthombeni stated he called Chief Mashaba with instructions from General Mawela related to the drug trafficking investigation.

“which you say that he states that indeed he did call Chief Mashaba with the instruction of General Mawela”

Brigadier Shibiri acted as contact between Chief Mashaba and the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) to deal with the drug trafficking matter.

“The Acting Deputy Provincial Commissioner Brigadier Shibiri gave me a feedback that he spoke to the Gauteng Police Traffic official referred to as Mashaba that the matter to be dealt with by the Directorate of Crime, the DPCI, known as the Hawks ... Brigadier Shibiri further indicated that he will liaise with the DPCI Provincial Head, Major General Kadwa, to deal with the matter”

Chief Mashaba was introduced to General Mthombeni during a vaccination drive and indicated that police were about to arrest a suspect related to drug information, and that the matter should be dealt with by Directorate of Crime, DPCI (the Hawks).

“During the vaccination drive, I remember speaking to an official attached to the Gauteng Traffic Police, who introduced himself as preferred Chief Mashaba, who indicated that he was following information on drugs and he indicated that the police are about to arrest him ... the matter to be dealt with by the Directorate of Crime, the DPCI, known as the Hawks”

Chief Mashaba was arrested by the Hawks while involved in an undercover drug operation which he could not disclose due to the nature of the operation.

“At about 11:26, I received communication from Deputy Director Sekhonyane that Chief Mashaba is being arrested by the Hawks. I called Chief Mashaba and his phone was off. And just a few minutes after that, he called me. He then told me that he could not tell me that they had an undercover operation of drugs when I asked him earlier to join me for the visits to the K78. He told me that the operation was successful, but they are just having a misunderstanding with other members of Crime Intelligence.”

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.”

Mashaba's presence at the crime scene as a traffic officer and lack of reasonable explanation made him a suspect until proven otherwise.

“His presence at the crime scene as a traffic officer and lack of reasonable explanation made him a suspect until the contrary was proved and he was treated as such.”

Warrant Officer Phakula contacted his superior to confirm his role at the crime scene but both declined, leading to suspicion about his role.

“She contacted his superior to confirm his role on the crime scene. He declined, the superior declined. This made him a suspect.”

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.”

Magane failed to give a proper account of his role at the crime scene and was treated as a suspect due to this and other factors including being out of his jurisdiction and refusing reasonable explanation.

“Magane failed to give a proper account of his role, and she concluded he must be treated as a suspect.”

The report is silent about 'her' (unspecified) and about Steyn, despite recommending prosecution against them, which raises concern about investigative thoroughness and fairness.

“Your report is completely silent about her...the same with Steyn...I want to go back to Sekgobela...Your report is completely silent about him and you recommend prosecution against them.”

The complainants' statements were accepted as true without interrogation, leading to conclusions that suspects obstructed justice based solely on those allegations, raising questions about investigative impartiality.

“You accept the complaint as true...these people were conducting an operation...you close your mind...you accept the allegation as true and draw your conclusions...raises the question, why do you even get statements if you are not going to engage with them?”

Recommendations and investigations by the IPID have significant consequences, and failure to conduct helpful investigations may lead to wrongful findings of guilt or innocence as with General Khan's case.

“Your investigations and recommendations have consequences for people...With a proper investigation, General Khan may well have been found guilty.”

The failed investigations possibly led to General Khan being found not guilty, raising concern about IPID's capacity and oversight by Mr Keefalake and investigators.

“Nothing helpful came out of it. Maybe because nothing helpful came out of it, General Khan was found not guilty...concern about the capacity of IPID, at least Mr Keefalake and the investigators.”

The report leads to a domino effect drawing in General Khan, General Khumalo, General Mkhwanazi, Brown Mogotsi, and the Minister's Office, through processes involving interference and influence, ultimately contributing to the Commission itself.

“The recommendations in your report are what leads to General Khan being charged...General Khumalo getting involved...General Mkhwanazi getting involved...Brown Mogotsi interfering...Minister's Office getting involved...part of the dots that lead to this Commission.”

Warrant Officer Phakula did not mention a meeting with General Khan after the incident where detainees were released, nor did he mention General Khan's drugs in his supplementary statement.

“I have a supplementary statement of Phakula, but he did not mention anything about saying it is General Khan's drugs.”

There was an issue of a meeting between Warrant Officer Phakula and General Khan, but the claim that the drugs were General Khan's is not supported by the statement.

“There was an issue of the meeting.”

Phakula mentioned during investigation that the seized drugs were meant for General Khan.

“they kept on talking about it, but I cannot remember if it is clear in his statement. But something like that, it kept on coming up, saying those drugs were meant for General Khan .”

Investigators made administrative errors regarding exhibit count; members did not fully explore and receive all exhibits, considered a human error with lack of follow-up on alibis.

“There were fundamental administrative errors made by the investigators. A number of exhibits collected were 700, whereas FSL received 715. One brick of cocaine was recovered by Local Criminal Records Centre and then handed over to DPCI, indicating that members did not fully explore and receive all exhibits. That was regarded as a human error. Lack of follow-up upon alibis.”

A negative recommendation was sent to SAPS to initiate disciplinary proceedings against members involved, including Major General Khan, General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela, Colonel Steyn, and Colonel Sebola.

“a negative recommendation was sent to SAPS to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the members involved. Then I mentioned the members, Major General Khan attached to Crime Intelligence, General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela, Colonel Steyn, and Colonel Sebola”

IPID received a report signed by National Head of DPCI, General Lebeya, indicating that disciplinary proceedings against DPCI members involved were declined.

“IPID received a report dated 2024-12-10, signed by National Head of DPCI, General Lebeya, indicating that they declined to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the DPCI members involved.”

No findings of unlawful arrest by IPID regarding the incident.

“No findings of unlawful arrest by IPID.”

IPID does not deal with cases of unlawful arrest but there is serious implication for any future representation to have Booysens CAS 8/07/2021 placed back on the roll due to prior decisions by NDPP that there are no reasonable prospects of successful prosecution.

“With regard to unlawful arrest, IPID does not deal with the cases of unlawful arrest. ... Serious implication on any future representation by DPCI to have Booysens CAS 8/07/2021 to be placed back on the roll, the Investigator knew or ought to have known that the matter was referred to NDPP and a decision was already made on 2024-06-21 that there are no reasonable prospects of successful prosecution.”

DPCI members contravened Regulation 5(3)(t) by conducting themselves in an improper, disgraceful manner, including failure to conduct due diligence at the crime scene and lack of follow-up on alibis.

“Members contravened Regulation 5 (3) (t) that says conduct himself or herself in an improper, disgraceful, and unacceptable manner. The fact that 700 exhibits were collected from the crime scene and 715 were received by FSL, indeed had no bearing on IPID recommendations. The fact that one brick was recovered later confirmed that DPCI members involved failed to do due diligence at the crime scene. ... Regulation 5 (3) (t), conducts himself or herself in an improper, disgraceful, and unacceptable manner... The fact that there was a lack of follow-up on alibis indicates that DPCI members involved did not want to investigate the origin and/or they protected the owner of the drugs by arresting the complainants.”

Lieutenant Colonel Sebola arrested complainants without explanation of drug recovery, contravening Regulation 5(3)(t).

“Lieutenant Colonel Sebola arrested the complainants based on the auspices that they failed to explain how they recovered the drugs and Regulation 5 (3) (t) also applies.”

General Khan, as a Crime Intelligence member, was not supposed to attend and actively involve himself at the crime scene but did so, raising serious concerns and obstructing justice by causing the arrest of discoverers of drugs and non-arrest of suspects responsible for the drugs.

“General Khan, as a member of Crime Intelligence, was not supposed to attend and actively involved at the crime scene. ... The fact that he was called by a Sergeant and decided to attend the crime scene and intervene in the scene raises serious concerns. His action at the crime scene obstructed the justice whereby the people who discovered the drugs were arrested and the suspects responsible for the said drugs were not arrested and/or released and no investigation was instituted on the origins of those drugs.”

The Chairperson found the employee charged with defeating the course of justice and misconduct not guilty and recommended disciplinary action against others involved whose conduct brought the organization into disrepute.

“The employee pleaded not guilty in both counts. The Chairperson found the employee not guilty. The facts placed before him reveals that on balance of probabilities the employee did not commit misconduct. The Chairperson recommended that the criminal and disciplinary investigation against all those who were involved should be instituted as it is their conduct which brings the image of the organisation into disrepute.”

Management in SAPS has differing perspectives about IPID recommendations and initiation of disciplinary processes, often initiating their own investigations causing delays.

“In my day-to-day performance of my duties I have experienced that management in the SAPS have different perspectives about IPID recommendation and initiation of disciplinary process. They also have different criticisms against the investigation conducted by IPID. They often opt to initiate their own investigation, seemingly resulting in a delay in the disciplinary processes as a whole.”

The South African Police Service (SAPS) faces criticism for inconsistent handling of disciplinary issues and for how they deal with IPID (Independent Police Investigative Directorate) recommendations, which negatively affects productivity, sound relations, morale of SAPS personnel, and public confidence in the police.

“The South African Police Service often comes under criticism for the way some disciplinary issues are being handled due to lack of consistency on investigation of misconduct and the way they deal with IPID recommendations . This has a negative impact on productivity, sound relations and morale of personnel in the SAPS . It also grossly affects the confidence of the public towards the police.”

Some police officers are suspended with pay or dismissed prematurely and later reinstated, raising questions of unnecessary or wasteful financial implications.

“some police officers are suspended with pay or dismissed prematurely and later reinstated . This raises the questions of unnecessary or wasteful financial implications .”

IPID does not have the mandate to investigate certain criminal intelligence information provided by an informer concerning drug and firearm deliveries connected to a company called Scania in South Africa.

“I P I D did not have the mandate to investigate such : “ The informer received information through his sources about the drugs and firearms that were to be delivered in South Africa ... to a company called Scania in South Africa .”

An informer gave information about drug and firearm shipments from Brazil to South Africa involving three containers alleged to contain drugs and firearms, with shipments expected at Durban Harbour and positive verification by a seaport controller named Roslin Ngobeni.

“The informer received information through his sources about the drugs and firearms that were to be delivered in South Africa ... The alleged three containers were given preference at the Durban Harbour . The information was followed by the complainants in Booysens CAS 252/11/2021 and indeed the information was positive . There was a drug bust at Scania . The information was confirmed by Roslin [ ? ] Ngobeni , employed by Freight and Logistics as a seaport controller .”

The driver of the container found with drugs drove from Durban to Johannesburg without stopping at weighbridges, with an unlikely timeline indicating possible misconduct or negligence.

“The driver of the container that was found with drugs drove from Durban to Johannesburg without stopping at the weighbridges . The driver took the container at the harbour at about 13:30 and arrived at his company in Johannesburg at about 20:00 , which is highly unlikely for the truck .”

Information related to firearms was never followed up because a General refused the crime scene team to work at the scene and the dog unit was called but not utilized.

“However, the information with regard to firearms was never followed due to the General who refused them to work at the crime scene . The Dog Unit was called , however, the dog was not utilised at the crime scene .”

Crime intelligence and DPCI Hawks members at the crime scene appeared to be protecting the owner of the drugs instead of conducting a proper investigation and gathering information.

“The conduct of DPCI Hawks and Crime Intelligence members at the crime scene appears that they were protecting the owner of the drugs .”

There were inconsistencies in the quantity of drugs submitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and legal advice was requested to investigate whether the changed bags of drugs were submitted and to request retesting to confirm contents.

“The issue of 700 and 15 bricks of drugs as well as the other bricks sent later to FSL for analysis , we wanted to make follow-up and investigate . There is no clear explanation into the inconsistencies of the number of drugs submitted to FSL . The matter was discussed with the Executive Director, Ms Ntlatseng , and she requested IPID Legal to look into the matter and give legal advice . The aim was to investigate the drugs , especially those changed bags were ever submitted to FSL , and if submitted , request the lab to retest the changed bags to compare them with the other bags for the purposes of confirming the contents thereof .”

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 .”

There was an ongoing investigation against Captain Nortje, Warrant Officer Morris, and an FSL analyst related to the drug bust, with legal advice still awaited.

“The investigation was going to be against Captain Nortje , Warrant Officer Morris , and FSL analyst . I am still waiting for the legal advice .”

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.”

Witness I holds a national diploma in accounting from the University of Johannesburg and completed various police training courses.

“I have a national diploma in accounting from the University of Johannesburg and did courses within SAPS, Introductory Police Training, Basic Crime Investigative Practice, Serious and Violent Crimes, SVC, Street Survival, Legal Principles, Vehicle Crime Investigators Course, Discipline Management Processes Learning Programme, Detective Commanders Learning Programme”

Witness I was transferred to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) in 2009, based at Serious Organised Crime Unit, and by 2021 was Team Leader for the South African Narcotics Enforcement Bureau (SANEB).

“Members were transferred to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, DPCI, in 2009, and I was based at Serious Organised Crime Unit. In 2021, I was Team Leader for South African Narcotics Enforcement Bureau, SANEB, a specialised unit within the SAPS”

Witness I is presently a Subsection Commander at TOMS, with duties including investigations, extraditions, surveillance, and operational leadership, reporting to National Head and Divisional Commissioner of DPCI.

“I am presently a Subsection Commander at TOMS, and my duties include open, inspect, and close enquiries... conduct surveillance observation and monitoring on armed robberies... attend management meetings within the unit and also lead members in meetings with third parties and other role players, command and control of members on all operational tasking”

Witness I accepted a transfer in 2023 to Tactical Operations Management Section (TOMS) under Brigadier Smith and later Brigadier Mokoena, with both reporting to Lieutenant General Mboto.

“In 2023, I accepted a transfer to Tactical Operations Management Section, TOMS, under the command of Brigadier Smith then, but now under command of Brigadier Mokoena, both Brigadiers reporting to Lieutenant General Mboto”

Witness I began employment in law enforcement in 2002 with the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO) known as the Scorpions, and remained until the DSO was disbanded in 2009.

“I began my employment in law enforcement with the Directorate of Special Operations, DSO, commonly known as Scorpions in 2002, and remained there as an Investigator until 2009 when DSO was disbanded”

Witness I's SANEB team comprised about four to five members and operated territorially in Gauteng province.

“I think there were four to five members. It is Gauteng. The entire Gauteng? Yes.”

Witness I was Team Leader at SANEB in 2001, leading a team investigating drug-related matters such as smuggling, dealing and trafficking.

“In 2001 when you were the Team Leader of SANEB, what were your duties then? It was leading a team in investigating drug-related matters, smuggling and dealing and trafficking of drugs within the country”

Section 252A operation is described by Witness I as an entrapment application.

“What is a section 252A operation? It is an entrapment application. Entrapment.”

In 2020 around August, Sergeant Masoma opened an inquiry on a suspect from Zambezi, Pretoria North for alleged narcotics dealing and transporting; the inquiry file was opened within the unit for preliminary investigation and evidence gathering.

“In 2020, around August, Sergeant Masoma opened an inquiry on an individual from Zambezi, Pretoria North, who was alleged to be dealing and transporting narcotics. An inquiry file is opened within the unit to do preliminary investigation and gather evidence.”

Witness I received a tip-off related to the inquiry from a source in KwaZulu-Natal on 6 August 2020.

“the message is in relation to the inquiry 6/8/2020”

On 9 July 2020, Sergeant Masoma received a tip-off about 23 bags of drugs en route from KwaZulu-Natal, and Witness I requested more details before acting on the tip-off.

“On 9 July 2020, at around 7 a.m., Sergeant Masoma notified me that he had received a tip-off the previous night about 23 bags of drugs en route from KwaZulu-Natal. I asked Sergeant Masoma to obtain more details... before we could act on the tip-off.”

On 9 July 2021, while on official duty in Pretoria, Witness I received a call from Sergeant Phakula of the K-9 unit about a truck suspected of transporting 23 bags of drugs from Durban to Johannesburg linked to the inquiry.

“on 9 July 2021, whilst still on official duty at my office in Pretoria, I received a telephone call from Sergeant Phakula of K-9 Unit ... truck suspected of transporting 23 bags of drugs in the Johannesburg area ... truck in question was also from Durban”

Witness I attended the scene of the drug find with Sergeant Masoma and found the suspect driver already under arrest and drugs were kept in a police bakkie without being booked at Booysens Police Station.

“I immediately went to Johannesburg with Sergeant Masoma from my office ... The driver of the truck transporting the drugs was identified ... already under arrest ... drug bags were kept on police bakkie ... truck containing the drugs was never booked at Booysens Police Station SAP13, but kept at station until it was collected by owner”

The 23 bags of suspected drugs were linked to the tip-off about the Pretoria inquiry from 6 August 2020, and Sergeant Masoma had also informed the witness the same morning.

“information about the 23 bags of suspected drugs coincided with the information Sergeant Masoma had informed me of the same morning, regarding the tip-off relating to Pretoria inquiry 6/8/2020”

Major General Khan from the Intelligence Division took over the drug scene and instructed officers to detain those who located the truck; one suspect driver was released from custody by Major General Khan.

“General from Intelligence Division, later known to me as Major General Khan ... issuing instructions that those who located the truck containing drugs should be detained ... driver who was already detained by the members was released from custody by Major General Khan”

Major General Khan forcibly took over the scene by directing Warrant Officer Magane to stay inside a black bakkie to pretend to be trying to run away, as a strategy to label him as attempting to flee.

“General Khan just hijacked and took over the scene by directing that first people to scene ... namely Warrant Officer Magane ... must get inside the black bakkie by driver's seat and sit there and to never come out ... it was a strategy or means to label Warrant Officer Magane as trying to run away from scene”

General Khan and Major General Kadwa, both holding strategic general posts, were running the drug scene, which was questionable as other officers with appropriate ranks could manage such scenes.

“Generals Khan and Kadwa were running the scene, which is questionable as the two SMS members are holding strategic posts of Generals ... there is brigadier colonel and lieutenant colonel and captain officers to run scenes or operations”

Major General Kadwa told Witness I that Germiston DPCI will deal with the scene and refused to discuss the inquiry file, instead directing the witness to Brigadier Sekgobela.

“Major General Kadwa told me that Germiston DPCI will deal with the scene ... he essentially avoided talking to me by evoking the SAPS chain of command and instructed me to rather address Brigadier Sekgobela”

Colonel JC Maluleke from DPCI Organised Crime Johannesburg advised Witness I to leave things alone and submit a statement explaining attendance at the scene, threatening arrest if statements are not made.

“Colonel JC Maluleke from DPCI Organised Crime Johannesburg advised me to leave things alone and that me and my members should just provide our statement ... Colonel JC Maluleke said if we do not make such statements, the Generals will arrest us”

Warrant Officer Phakula, Warrant Officer Magane, Chief Mashaba of Traffic and an unknown male were placed under arrest per General Khan's directive, which Witness I considered an abuse of power and an effort to protect the suspect driver and obscure the vehicle's origin.

“Warrant Officer Phakula, Warrant Officer Magane, Chief Mashaba of Traffic and one black male unknown to me were placed under arrest as per instruction or directive of General Khan ... As weeks passed, my observations of the scene indicated potential abuse of power and rank ... I was concerned that these actions appeared to be an effort to protect both the driver of the truck ... and to obscure the origin of the vehicle and its contents”

General Khan took the driver of the truck away from the scene to make him disappear, which was a clear manipulation and misuse of authority.

“General Khan took driver of truck where he was contained and moved him away from the scene so he can disappear ... This was clear manipulation of members and the misuse of authority”

Witness I called Lieutenant General Lebeya to report the scene situation, but feedback promised by Lebeya was never given.

“I immediately called the Office of the National Head, Lieutenant General Lebeya, for me to come and have a meeting with him on what transpired ... Lieutenant General Lebeya promised to look on the matter and give me feedback, which was never done”

Witness I is the Team Leader of SANEB and members of several SAPS units inform him about drug-related scenes to provide alerts or ask for engagement.

“I am Team Leader of SANEB, and if they hear or have a scenario where drugs-related things are there, they should inform me.”

Witness I requested a narcotics dog from K-9 unit to confirm if suspected drugs at a scene are really drugs, emphasizing the need for certainty.

“If they say there are drugs, we need to confirm for sure if they are really drugs ... I requested a narcotics dog.”

Witness I states that an inquiry is opened on CAS system with a file indicating alleged criminality, assigned to a member to run and conduct preliminary investigation and get evidential material, supervised by commanders.

“The inquiry is opened on the CAS system, and a file is opened with the alleged criminality being indicated... it is given to a member to run and start conducting preliminary investigations... This process is monitored by your Commanders.”

There is general knowledge within SAPS of conflict of interest or possible compromise involving senior members around narcotics matters; members speak off-record about it but not publicly.

“There is a conflict of interest with SMS members when it comes to narcotics within SAPS ... it happens that the mission will not be accomplished as the target will be tipped off or it will come to their knowledge ... members will not publicly speak about it, but within corridors and on the street, they speak of it off record.”

Witness I would report operational tip-offs to the Unit Commander, who was Colonel Bok at the relevant time, but also to other two full Colonels.

“If you had to inform someone... to the Unit Commander, Colonel Bok ... Not only him. Then there were three full Colonels.”

Witness I received a call about a truck suspected to have drugs and intended to verify and confirm the information on the scene with Masoma.

“I received a call that there is a truck suspected to be having drugs. My intention and reason I went there with Masoma was to verify the info I received and check if it is true and correct.”

Warrant Officer Phakula was at the scene being briefed by General Khan near DPCI Germiston and Johannesburg members.

“He was approaching where I was standing by the bakkie being briefed by Warrant Officer Phakula.”

General Khan instructed members including Warrant Officer Magane to keep the detained truck driver inside the vehicle and not to let him come out.

“Warrant Officer Magane must get inside the driver’s seat of the black bakkie and he must never come out.”

General Kadwa arrived later, was briefed by General Khan, and spoke to members of the Germiston office, both running the scene.

“General Kadwa, when he came to the scene, he stood also near the Johannesburg Germiston members... I think he stood with him for a long time, which I suspect maybe he was briefing him. After briefing him, General Kadwa spoke with some of the members from the Germiston office.”

Witness I learned from Sergeant Phakula of K-9 that the number of drugs restored at Pretoria West College was no longer the same, missing over 100 bricks from the initial quantity collected.

“I learned that the number was no longer the same ... the block of bricks was less by over 100 in number. I learned from Phakula of K-9.”

Major General Khan took the driver of the detained truck away from the scene to make him disappear from it, which the witness suspected was intentional.

“General Khan took the driver of the truck where he was contained and moved him away from the scene so he can disappear.”

Certain officials, specifically Major General Khan and Major General Kadwa, acted as if they were above the law during the event in question.

“it was evident that certain officials, individuals, functioned as if they were above the law. When you say certain officials, individuals, who do you mean? Major General Khan. And you say it in the plural. Who else do you mean? Both General Khan and Kadwa.”

The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) investigated the Aeroton drug bust event on 9 July 2021 and recommended disciplinary action against Major General Khan for his conduct at the scene.

“The Independent Police Investigative Directorate, IPID, investigated the events that acquired on 9 July 2021. As part of their recommendations, IPID specifically called for disciplinary action to be taken against Major General Khan for his conduct at the scene.”

A departmental investigation by Major General Gerber concluded that Generals Khan and Kadwa were doing their job, which the witness did not find comforting.

“Major General Gerber concluded that Generals Khan and Kadwa were doing their job. General Gerber interviewed me at DPCI Head Office in Silverton. I did not find this comforting.”

Allegations exist that Major General Khan is known to oversee drugs coming from KwaZulu-Natal and that he is involved in related transactions, though these remain hearsay and uninvestigated by the witness.

“All allegations are that Major General Khan is known to oversee drugs coming from KZN or being party to transactions in relation to them. All these allegations are just the hearsay, rumours said by various people, and I never investigated them or made follow-up on them.”

Witness met Brown Mogotsi, a businessman who reports irregularities in the North West and is perceived as a knowledgeable source, surrounded by rumors of illegal conduct in North West province.

“I first met Mr Mogotsi during 2020 around Rustenburg as a source who gave information about illegal conduct and practices around the North West. He was said to be a businessman who knows a lot of things and frequently reports irregularities within the North West Province.”

Witness was never given illegal conduct reports on North West by Brown Mogotsi and never ran any operations with him.

“No, this is just malpractice within the North West province. No, I have never run any operations with him.”

Witness met Brown Mogotsi in person for the first time in 2020 but did not communicate with him beyond seeing him.

“I saw him in 2020. It is like the first time seeing him, it was that day. But I never communicated with him.”

On 29 January 2025, Witness met Brown Mogotsi and a CI member at a meeting facilitated by Mr Vusi Matlala through Warrant Officer Faleni Zungu, who is now Captain and was a DPCI member.

“On 29 January 2025, I met Mr Mogotsi and CI member. The meeting was facilitated by Mr Vusi Matlala through Warrant Officer Faleni Zungu, now Captain. Captain Zungu was a member of DPCI but now moved.”

Captain Zungu called Witness to say people want to consult Witness regarding a matter involving General Khan, but did not disclose who they were.

“Captain Zungu called me and said there are people who want to consult with you in respect of a matter. I am a witness to involving General Khan. I asked who the people are which he did not disclose and where can I find them? Captain Zungu said they are at Houghton Hotel in Sandton as we speak and I can find them there.”