Hearing day 122

The Commission has serially refused to furnish information upon request and often responds with nonchalant or no response.

“serial refusal by the Commission to furnish information upon request ... we got this nonchalant response, or no response at all, or an unreasonable response”

The Commission does not consistently uphold the right of witnesses and parties to know and respond to accusations made against them, contrary to fundamental audi alteram partem principles.

“people have a right of reply ... and that is one of the most fundamental rights under the broad rubric of audi alteram partem”

General Senona expresses concerns about unfair treatment by the Commission, asserting the Commission is enjoined to treat witnesses fairly.

“the general heading really of all what I am saying is concerns regarding what the General feels has been unfair treatment by the Commission”

General Senona is likely the witness who has been called back most frequently to testify in the Commission, despite having previously testified for three days in January.

“he is probably been the witness who has been called back more than anyone else to come back here, despite the fact that he testified for three days in January”

The Commission should ensure witnesses do not stray outside the subpoena and that no improper issues are raised outside its jurisdiction.

“one of the things we have been asked to do is to ensure that there will be no straying outside of the subpoena that has brought us here”

The witness states that many questions repeat earlier testimony, specifically about the break-in and theft in Port Shepstone, with more than 50% or 60% of questions simply referring back to previous transcripts.

“there are about 15, but more than 50% or even 60% of those questions, you will find that we actually just refer, the answer is to refer you back to the transcript on many occasions”

There was an instance where a subpoena was exactly the same as one given the previous year and this mistake was acknowledged and an apology was given, but it still caused discomfort and inconvenience.

“even an instance where the subpoena was literally exactly the same as the one that had been given last year, and then we pointed that out and there was duly an apology”

It is quite oppressive for the General to have to repeat himself frequently at the Commission, including dealing with subpoenas and sets, sometimes repeated from last year, causing costly exercises and inconvenience.

“it is quite oppressive to the General to have to repeat himself”

The General has appeared about six times at the Commission, which includes times when he did not testify and when his legal representative was unwell, making it an expensive exercise.

“the General has had to be doing this to - ing and fro - ing about six times now, or that this is his sixth appearance”

The General feels strongly about the issue of relevance during the Commission's probing and is making a serious protest about what he perceives as issues beyond the terms of reference.

“the General feels very strongly about, and I hope it will be taken in the spirit in which it was intended ... but he just wants to, for it to be known that he is doing so under some serious protest”

The Commission is entitled to probe whether the theft was due to incompetence or criminality, but making witnesses continue for days on this matter might not be relevant to the terms of reference or might instead be a matter of performance management.

“The Commission is entitled ... to probe whether this theft was a matter of sheer incompetence or criminality ... but ... why did you not follow this prescript or that prescript”

The Commission's mandate is legally confined to criminality and interference as defined in the terms of reference and is not a disciplinary committee for police performance evaluations, though some overlap with performance assessments might be inevitable.

“this Commission is not some surrogate disciplinary committee of the police ... but those issues might be relevant, of course, to the core mandate of the Commission which is criminality, interference”

There is a discussion regarding probing omissions or misconduct that may have contributed to events, and the witness accepts the legal principle that commission or omission can be liable in criminal law.

“The commission or omission, like in criminal law, you can be liable for a positive act or omission. That I accept”

The focus of questioning in the last round of the questionnaire is more on whether alternative routes should have been taken rather than the core mandate of the Commission which concerns criminality and interference, and such issues might be more suited to police performance assessment panels.

“the focus is more on, well, would it not have been better to go to Isipingo or to go to Port Shepstone ... but that is not the core mandate of the Commission”

The General does not allege any serial refusal by Evidence Leaders to produce documents; no single document required from Evidence Leaders has been failed to produce.

“the General, even in his statement, does not make such an allegation . There is not a single document that the Evidence Leaders have been required to produce and have failed to produce”

Documents relating to testimony, reportedly claimed by Colonel Prinsloo and another to have been received two days before General Senona's statement, were provided as per a request from General Senona.

“the documents were provided on the basis of a request from General Senona . The request came in that week , and by the 29th , the documents were provided”

A Regulation 0.6 document, based on evidence and testimony, has been issued instead of Rule 3.5 notices, inviting the person referenced to provide testimony or a contrary position.

“What instead has been issued is a Regulation 0 . 6 , which once again is a document that is generated by Evidence Leaders based on the evidence and testimony before the Commission where we believe”

General Senona's complaints largely stem from a belief that he was not served with Rule 3.5 notices, which are notices issued when a person is implicated based on evidence and testimony.

“General Senona's complaints stem largely from a view that we have failed to serve him with a Rule 3 . 5 notices . And these are notices that we issue based on testimony and evidence”

No Rule 3.5 notices have been issued to General Senona as there has been no finding of implication of General Senona by witnesses or the Commission.

“we have found none and no Rule 3 . 5 notices have been issued”

General Senona is not considered implicated by the Commission or the witnesses, so no Rule 3.5 notices apply and he has no right of reply to allegations that he is not implicated to respond to.

“Where he is not implicated, his right of reply does not arise”

General Senona was scheduled to appear on 8 May 2026, but his testimony was postponed multiple times to 5 June due to an application by him and Commission scheduling challenges.

“General Senona was scheduled to appear on the 8th of May 2026 . He was part of the DPCI KZN management . ... He presented himself on the 1st of June . ... he had to be stood down to the 5th of June”

General Senona was not intended to be engaged as an implicated person regarding the Port Shepstone drug bust, but as head of DPCI-KZN as part of management ultimately responsible.

“He was never intended to be engaged on the matter as an implicated person . The thinking has always been to engage him as head of DPCI-KZN , ... at the end of the day would , except that the buck stops with him”

The Commission requires and issues subpoenas and follows a process to determine the acceptable version if a witness is contradicted by another.

“He is required to address himself to the questions posed both in the regulation 10.6 and the subpoena to the extent that he is able to do so. Should another witness come forward after he has testified to contradict him, then that is for the Commission to engage with and to determine whose version is acceptable and on what basis.”

Since January 2026, the Commission has acquired significant relevant documents and testimony from other witnesses regarding the infiltration or influence of criminal syndicates over entities including the SAPS and DPCI.

“since his appearance in 2026, the Commission has been placed in possession of significant documents that are relevant to the issue. Other witnesses have testified and, too, produced documents before the Commission... what this Commission is mandated to interrogate is whether criminal syndicates, including but not limited to drug cartels, have infiltrated or exerted influence over a range of entities, including the SAPS, of which the DPCI is a part”

Senior SAPS members may have played a role in aiding or being complicit in betting criminal activity, either through act or omission.

“the role of senior SAPS members in aiding or abetting criminal activity... Either through act or omission.”

The Commission rules require that a witness become available and answer questions to the Commission's satisfaction, and Commissioners are entitled to recall witnesses to determine correct factual positions.

“our rules require that a witness be come available and answer the questions to the satisfaction of the Commission... Commissioners are entitled to recall a witness to assist them in determining the correct factual position.”

The head of the KZN DPCI must be engaged multiple times to answer about knowledge, application, and approval of conduct by members under his authority regarding relevant matters.

“there will be interrogation about the knowledge, the application, and approval of conduct by the Head of the KZN DPCI of members that resort under his authority and that engagement must be heard to understand... whether it was incompetence or it is deliberate.”

The head of KZN DPCI has not admitted in statements or responses to not following prescriptions or rules.

“I am not aware of him so admitting in his first statement, during his first appearance in January, in the supplementary statement, nor in the response to regulation 10.6.”

If there is negative or adverse information given about a person, whether under regulations 10.6 or 10.20, that person is entitled to know about it in good time so that they can respond.

“if some negative or adverse information is going to be given about me, whether it is under 10.6 or 10.20 does not matter. I am entitled to know about that in good time so that I can respond to it.”

Adverse statements were made about the General by persons including Warrant Officer Sander, Brigadier Nyuswa, Lieutenant Colonel Jacob, and Witness H.

“there is nobody who can genuinely deny that adverse statements were made about the General by those persons.”

A letter dated 1 June 2026 from the Commission reminds clients that all witnesses are called to testify based on their knowledge and their knowledge is not dependent on others' testimonies, and that statements called for cannot be implicated by others' versions of the truth.

“With reference to your letter dated 1 June 2026... all witnesses are called to testify on their knowledge of any fact. It is important to mention and place on record that their knowledge is not dependent on whether others who testified before them, implicate them... Your client's statement that was called forth through relevant notices cannot in any way be implicated by someone else's version of the truth.”

Warrant Officer Karl Sander made allegations against Major General Senona in his testimony of 1 June.

“...we refer to the Chairperson's ruling on 1 June... the statement of Warrant Officer Karl Sander, who in his testimony of 1 June made certain allegations against Major General Senona.”

The client was made aware by the media that he was implicated in the Commission's proceedings on that day, which led to a request for a statement and annexures before being excused by the Commission.

“Our client was made aware by the media that he was implicated in today's proceedings of the Commission... our client would have requested for copies of his statement and annexures before being excused by the Commission earlier today.”

General Senona was served with a disciplinary notice two days after his last appearance at the Commission, stating he was suspended because of what he said at the Madlanga Commission.

“On the 31st of January, two days after the last appearance of the General here, he was served with a disciplinary notice by the police and it said in so many words, you are being suspended because of what you said at the Madlanga Commission.”

General Senona was suspended before he could do anything and the suspension was related to the Commission's proceedings.

“...unfortunately he was suspended before he could do anything.”

The suspension of General Senona lapsed because nothing happened within 60 days.

“By the way, that suspension lapsed because in 60 days' time nothing had happened.”

There are people in the SAPS and HR offices who are passively watching the Commission proceedings and pouncing on people based on notes they take, which is an inherent danger in such proceedings.

“...there are people, whether in the inappropriately named unit or whatever its name is... or the HR offices of SAPS, whose task as quiet laziness, to be honest, as just sitting here and watching here and then making notes and then pouncing on people. That might be... an inherent danger in proceedings like this.”

The Commission has been placed in possession of further information since January that might have necessitated recalling a witness, and the same information should be shared with the other parties involved for a fair process.

“The Commission has since been placed into possession of further information on what has since come to light... if that has necessitated him being recalled, then we should be placed in the same position... so that we are in a position to assist you.”

Advocate Mpofu asserts that Brigadier Nyuswa was made aware of General Senona's opposing version during preparation for his statement, as communicated by the Evidence Leaders, which raises issues of fairness and legal appropriateness.

“when Brigadier Nyuswa was being recognized or preparing for his statement, he was told what the version of General Senona will be on that particular point... it would have been appropriate, legally speaking, for him to be placed in the same position that the Evidence Leaders chose to put Brigadier Nyuswa”

Advocate Mpofu claims that General Nyuswa has not been furnished with a requested statement, demonstrating delays and incomplete disclosure by the Commission.

“we have been asking for the statement, the Commission’s statement of, what is it, Brigadier Nyuswa, just as an example, and we have not been furnished with that”

Advocate Mpofu explains the risks faced by a witness who must repeatedly return to testify without means and faces intimidation from a certain unit, highlighting risks beyond speculation.

“he has to pay lawyers, he has to, this is a person who is not a person of means... he does not want to face the risk of being pounced upon by that unit whose name we will not repeat after he has been here. So the risks are real. They are not speculative”

According to Advocate Mpofu, the letter from General Senona's attorneys seeks postponement of the statement filing on grounds that other witnesses have yet to testify and their statements need to be seen first.

“this letter from the attorneys in paragraphs 4 and 5 seeks a postponement of the filing of that statement... on the basis that other witnesses are still going to testify, there are other statements, I should first see those statements”

Advocate Mpofu objects to the characterization of Ms Burger's response and insists that the context of the letter from June 1st requesting postponement of General Senona's statement must be properly recorded and understood.

“The response of Ms Burger... is to say that General Senona, there is a ruling, you must abide by that ruling, and you cannot get a postponement... what you characterize as arrogant is really a restating of the position”

Advocate Mpofu notes that ignoring a subpoena has serious implications and emphasizes that compliance must follow official orders, stressing the Commission's complaint is incomplete disclosure rather than tone of correspondence.

“It is all very well to say that to a person, you must ignore a subpoena... we all know what the implications are of ignoring a subpoena... we were not given that information. That is really our complaint, not the tone of the letter as such”

Advocate Mpofu clarifies that responses to letters like the one from the Commission are coordinated by the Commissioners and not made on individual initiative.

“Something like this comes to the Commissioners, that you gave a ruling, we now have this letter. So, where she says you are required to comply, it is a communication that comes from the Commission”

Statements of witnesses are not given out until the witness has testified, and they are not published or given to the media earlier.

“statements do not go out until a witness has testified”

The practice of not releasing witness statements prior to testimony is general and applies to all witnesses equally, so no individual should be treated unfairly by this practice.

“if it is unfair, it is unfair to everybody who has had to testify here”

Witnesses often have to confirm their statement under oath and may correct or discard previous statements before final confirmation, making early dissemination of statements impractical.

“witnesses often have to confirm when the oath is administered that this is my statement and that is my signature... they have to correct those statements and say, no, no... you can understand how impractical it is before a witness has confirmed that that is his final statement to distribute it”

Brigadier Nyuswa is a brigadier who testified on 17 June and the Commission does not release witness statements until after the witness has confirmed them, which may delay potential assistance to General Senona's team who wanted a copy of Brigadier Nyuswa's statement by 1 June.

“Brigadier Nyuswa is a Brigadier, testified on Wednesday, the 17th... by the 1st of June, General Senona's team wanted a copy of his statement and as the Commission points out, the Commission does not release any statement until the witness has confirmed it”

After testifying, Maj-Gen Senona was forcibly removed from his office at gunpoint on 1 January and was told not to return; his tools of trade were taken, impacting his safety and that of his family.

“I was taken out of my office at gunpoint and on the 1st of January. I raise the issues of safety, but a ruling was done. I was taken out of my office, escorted with firearms, and I was told not to come back to the office. My tools of trades were taken...ever since that day, I am not 100% well in terms of safety, my safety and that of my family.”

General Senona is currently a Major General in the SAPS and placed on suspension due to issues related to the storage and theft of exhibits from the Commission.

“I am a Major General in the South African Police Service... I am currently placed on suspension... because of the storage and the theft of exhibits which emanated from the Commission”

Maj-Gen Senona states he is currently under two suspensions related to police disciplinary matters; the first suspension was improperly managed and the second relates to the theft and storage of drugs at Port Shepstone.

“It is two suspensions. The first one, I was suspended, and because evidence was given at the Commission under oath... and then on the 22nd of May, it was 77 days after I was suspended, the suspension was uplifted, of which it was uplifted by my supervisor who did not have the power to do so... On the 3rd... I was provided with another suspension. The second suspension that I am on now talks to the issues of theft and storage of drugs at Port Shepstone.”

Maj-Gen Senona is willing to assist the Commission despite his ongoing disciplinary hearing that coincides with the Commission's dates.

“To show that I am willing to assist the Commission, I opted to come here, not to go to that side... There was a date for me to attend another disciplinary hearing today at 10 o'clock, it is currently ongoing.”

Maj-Gen Senona filed a sworn statement responding to a Regulation 10.6 notice related to the seizure of 541 kilograms of suspected cocaine at the CHC depot in Durban Harbour on 22 June 2021.

“...a Regulation 10.6 notice of 4 May... calls upon me to answer certain questions relating to the seizure of 541 kilograms of drugs (Cocaine)... At the CHC depot, Avenue East, 14th Avenue, East Isipingo Prospect on, Durban Harbour, on the 22nd of June 021...”

Maj-Gen Senona alleges retired Lt Col Prinsloo failed to disclose to the Commission that he informed the District Commissioner about the drug storage and requested Visible Policing patrols, incorrectly claiming Senona instructed no one to be informed and never requesting assistance.

“I have several concerns regarding my evidence tendered by Colonel Prinsloo. This includes his failure to disclose to the Commission that he informed the District Commissioner in that district about the storage of the drugs and that he requested Visible Policing patrols in the area. He alleges that I instructed that no one be informed about the storage, but he never requested additional assistance from my office.”

Maj-Gen Senona claims at least three witnesses have implicated him in the drug seizure and storage occurring on 22 June 2021, and that the Commission provided their statements only two days before his sworn statement deadline.

“At least three witnesses have given evidence implicating me in the drug seizure and storage of 22 June 2021... The Commission only furnished me with the statements late afternoon on Friday, 29 May 2026, a mere two days before my sworn statement had to be filed...”

Maj-Gen Senona apologizes for oversight in initially referring to the drugs as cocaine and affirms his statement concerns suspected cocaine storage.

“Sorry, General Senona, just to be clear, you are still referring to the suspected Cocaine, not another storage? 100%, Commissioner. Apologies for my oversight...”

Maj-Gen Senona confirms the affidavit mentioned by Adv Sello is the one made immediately after the incident requested by Lt Gen Mosikili.

“It is a statement that he made immediately after the incident where we were requested by Lieutenant General Mosikili to provide affidavit of the incidents.”

Lieutenant Colonel Prinsloo failed to disclose the visit to Maj-Gen Senona by Brigadier Naicker and the two Warrant Officers at Port Shepstone offices and no report or feedback concerning such visits were received by his office.

“Lieutenant Colonel Prinsloo also failed to disclose the visit to me by Brigadier Naicker, who is from head office, and the two Warrant Officers at Port Shepstone offices...my office never received any report or feedback concerning such visitor inspections”

Maj-Gen Senona does not dispute the visit by Brigadier Naicker and Warrant Officers but states it was never brought to his attention and no report of the inspection was ever sent to his office.

“I am not disputing the visit...However, I am indicating...that the visit initially was never brought to my attention. And thereafter, even a report of such an inspection was never brought or sent to my office.”

Maj-Gen Senona testified about security concerns including alleged burning smells observed by another member but failed to escalate these concerns to his attention after attempts with Supply Chain Management and these concerns were never brought to his attention prior to drug storage at Port Shepstone.

“He testified about these security concerns...At no stage were these security concerns at Port Shepstone brought to my attention prior to the storage of these drugs there.”

Maj-Gen Senona states that Warrant Officer failed to complete the relevant document for the handing over and control of safe keys despite being aware of applicable procedures, which he did not know and had never dealt with before.

“He also failed to complete the relevant document to the handing over and control of the safe keys, despite him being aware of the applicable procedures. These procedures were not within my knowledge...”

Maj-Gen Senona states he is not an expert in Supply Chain Management and saw the handing over document of the safe keys for the first time before the Commission; the Warrant Officer never completed the document or requested signing for the keys.

“That document was presented before this Commission by Lieutenant Colonel Prinsloo...It was the first time I saw it...He never testified that he tried to complete that and so that they must sign for the keys or so...It never happened and he never testified in that instance.”

Maj-Gen Senona failed to properly inspect the office premises on 7 and 8 November 2021 despite observing unusual lights on the ground floor and no occurrences or book entries were made regarding this; he only inspected his own office and left, which leaves a gap in security oversight.

“He failed to properly inspect the office premises during the afternoon of the Sunday on the 7th of November 2021 and the morning of Monday, 8 November 2021, despite observing that lights were on at the ground floor which he considered abnormal. No occurrence book entries were made in this regard...He only went into his office and did what he did and from there he left, of which it leaves a vacuum in my mind why he never did that.”

Maj-Gen Senona failed to disclose the visit by Brigadier Nyuswa to the Port Shepstone offices on 2 November 2021 shortly before the drug theft occurred; Brigadier Nyuswa confirmed his visit.

“He further failed to disclose the visit by Brigadier Nyuswa to the Port Shepstone offices on Tuesday, the 2nd of November 2021, shortly before the theft occurred...I can confirm, Commissioners, that Brigadier Nyuswa also testified here and he confirmed that he did visit the office on the 2nd of November 2021.”

Maj-Gen Senona never visited the Port Shepstone office since the drugs were stored there.

“From where I am sitting, I have never visited that office ever since those drugs were stored at Port Shepstone.”

The Commission heard that Warrant Officer Sanders was questioned by Commissioner Khumalo about his temporary placement letter signed by Maj-Gen Senona.

“Warrant Officer Sanders was questioned by Commissioner Khumalo on his temporary placement letter that was signed by me.”

Warrant Officer Sanders believes he was targeted because his superiors were removing him due to his actions against drug traffickers.

“Because you implied yesterday that your superiors were moving you out of the way because you were stepping on the toes of the drug traffickers now.”

Warrant Officer Sanders stated he suffered repercussions due to his knowledge of the drug theft suspects.

“The only inference he can draw is that he suffered repercussions.”

Warrant Officer Sanders indicated he believed the drug theft suspects are known and was informed by Colonel Jacob personally about their identities and links to management of DPCI.

“The suspect who stole the drugs are known...I was informed by Colonel Jacob personally who they are, but the links to the management. Commissioner Khumalo then interjected and said, the links to the management of DPCI, and Warrant Officer Sanders agreed.”

General Senona transferred Warrant Officer Sander and that the transfer was not for nefarious reasons but due to serious allegations related to drug trafficking.

“no , sir , I said General Senona was the one who moved me ... I only became aware of the complaint when I received the instruction from the DPCI National Head ... the complaint's email was addressed to the National Head and others , not to myself”

Colonel Jacobs was Acting Provincial Commander during the process to place Warrant Officer Sander at Supply Chain Management until investigation is finalized.

“Colonel Jacobs was the Acting Provincial Commander ... I placed him at Supply Chain Management until the investigation is finalized”

Warrant Officer Sander was temporarily placed at another post pending investigation due to serious allegations involving the theft of cocaine and selling it to a specific gang.

“I later received a further instruction from General Surajbali to temporarily place the member at another post pending investigation ... there was a serious allegation of Warrant Officer Sander and other members involved in the theft of Cocaine at the harbour and selling it to a specific gang”

The thefts in the provincial office included a camera, state laptop with sensitive information, laminating machine, and a coffee machine associated with Warrant Officer Sander.

“there was a theft of a camera of the state . There was a theft of a state laptop which possesses sensitive information in that office . There was also a theft of a laminating machine . His coffee machine was the last one”

Brigadier Nyuswa initiated and applied for the reemployment of members in Supply Chain Management where Warrant Officer Sander was placed, and ordered polygraph tests due to disappearances.

“The person who initiated and applied for these members that are employed in that Supply Chain Management where this Sander was placed , was initiated by Brigadier Nyuswa ... All these members must go for polygraph test because there was no break-in , but things are disappearing”

The speaker was taken out of office at gunpoint, had tools, laptop, and gun taken, causing hospitalisation for two weeks; asserts willingness to assist Commission despite personal suffering.

“I was taken out of my office like somebody I do not know for lack of a better word , like a dog ... that thing is still a pain here and it caused me to lie in hospital for two weeks ... I want to assist this Commission”

Warrant Officer Sander was not subjected to polygraph examination due to theft of his coffee machine as claimed; rather, he was signed for a call-up instruction by the speaker.

“It is not correct that he was subjected to polygraph examination because of the theft of his own coffee machine that was stolen in that office ... I only signed the call-up instruction”

The speaker asserts their evidence is controversial but insists that the irregular transfer alleged is incorrect and that they were not given regulation notices or materials by the Commission.

“I say with respect that my treatment at the Commission has been unfair ... the evidence implicating me is led and thereafter I respond thereto ... I was not served with the Regulation 3.5 statement and a Regulation 10.6 notice or any other material documents”

When Warrant Officer Sander was placed back to his office, the speaker informed Brigadier Nyuswa that the investigation was taking too long and suggested stopping Sander's allowances.

“I informed Brigadier Nyuswa that Warrant Officer Sander , because this investigation is taking too long , someone from the Legal Services wanted to stop his allowances”

Warrant Officer Sander was supposed to return to the Serious Organized Crime Investigation (SOCI) unit where he was previously working, and there was no instruction given by Maj-Gen Senona for him to be placed at EPR instead.

“he can go back to Serious Organized Crime Investigation in Durban office where he was working before ... I have never specified that he should not be placed at EPR as it was said by Brigadier Nyuswa”

The initial investigation against Warrant Officer Sander only found misconduct for not declaring a directorship in a shooting practice company, but the investigation on all serious allegations against him is ongoing.

“the only thing that was found at that stage was the misconduct of him not declaring the directorship of a shooting practice company. However, I think the investigation is ongoing of those allegations because they are of a serious nature”

Maj-Gen Senona states that his tools of trade, including his laptop and documents, were taken by force on 31 January, making it difficult to assist the Commission.

“However, as I said, my tools of trades were taken by force ... On the 31st of January, my laptop and everything, I do not know what happened there ... it was a serious mountain to climb”

Maj-Gen Senona states that he had to resort to verbal instructions due to the situation faced, and denies giving urgent written instructions placing Warrant Officer Sander elsewhere than SOCI.

“This verbal instruction, it is out of necessity to do verbal instruction because of the situation we are facing with ... I never gave Brigadier Nyuswa that type of an instruction that he must not go back there, he must go there”

Maj-Gen Senona denies ever giving the instruction that Warrant Officer Sander must be placed at EPR, stating such instructions would be in writing and he has no recollection of issuing any such instruction.

“I have never given that instruction ... If I have given it, I would have maybe, or the Commission would have got a document as much as I placed him in Supply Chain Management”

The investigations concerning Warrant Officer Sander, including serious allegations, are ongoing and have not come to a conclusion.

“I do not have a proper recollection of that ... it is not easy to close that type of investigation at a very short space of time the way it was dealt with, because also the DPP was involved guiding that investigation”

Maj-Gen Senona was receiving progress reports on the investigation into the allegations against Warrant Officer Sander, which were sent via Brigadier Nyuswa.

“I was receiving progress report ... Lieutenant Colonel Mtshali, he is now Colonel, was appointed to investigate ... progress report ... he will write it to Brigadier Nyuswa ... Brigadier Nyuswa will forward the email to me”

Maj-Gen Senona confirms he signed the letter placing Warrant Officer Sander in Supply Chain Management based on complaint and advice by head office.

“I confirm that this is my signature ... This is the letter that I signed, I placed him there, based on the complaint and advice by head office”

Maj-Gen Senona states he did not receive full documentation (only complaints) from head office regarding the investigation, limiting his ability to act especially during his suspension.

“They only send us the complaint ... they never provided us with that, the national office ... I am on suspension, I cannot force them ... There is nothing I can do. I am not even allowed to go to any offices of the DPCI”

Maj-Gen Senona asserts that there is no reason for him to be treated differently in providing evidence and requests that his evidence is not elicited in piecemeal fashion with unreasonably short time periods to file statements.

“There is no reason that I should be treated differently and expected to give evidence in the absence of this document ... There is also no reason why my evidence must be elicited in a piecemeal fashion ... I intend with this statement my answers to the 25 May 026 Regulation 10.6”

The General has located the statement by Colonel Prinsloot that he references generally in his own statement, and it is being copied and made available to the Commission.

“Chair, we have located the statement by Colonel Prinsloot that the General references in his statement. It has been copied and he would like to make direct reference thereto.”

There is a complaint against Warrant Officer Sander, which was originally received by the General as part of a statement but without the remainder of documents related to the complaint and investigations.

“He indicated he only has the statement but not the remainder of the documents relating to that complaint and the investigations.”

The disciplinary issue against Warrant Officer Sander, finalised through recommendations by the FIC, does not necessarily indicate criminal conduct as depicted in the original complaint.

“These issues that I heard does not necessarily indicate that the criminal conduct as it is depicted in the complaint, it has been finalised. The certain sections that are directing us towards that were finalised, but not the actual criminal conduct as per the original complaint, Commissioners.”

The investigation into the complaint against Warrant Officer Sander was conducted in line with the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) and involved a Risk and Integrity Management section.

“When we conduct investigation in the DPCI, there are different things that we do. You will realise that on paragraph 4, it talks about the investigation that was conducted in line with the FIC, Financial Intelligence Centre.”

The General directed Brigadier Nyuswa that the member must return to Serious Organised Crime Investigations (SOCI) rather than to SANEB, indicating that his return was compliant with instructions.

“My decision was that he must go back to SOCI, Serious Organised Crime Investigations... I said he must go back to SOCI... And my directive as far as I am concerned, or as far as I can recall, I said he must go back to SOCI.”

SOCI as an entity comprises three subsections: National Priority Violence Crime (NPVC), South African Narcotic Enforcement Bureau (SANEB), and EPR.

“SOCI is Serious Organised Crime, and Serious Organised Crime is divided into three subsections. The NPVC, National Priority Violence Crime, SANEB, South African Narcotic Enforcement Bureau, and the EPR.”

The complaint against Warrant Officer Sander was investigated but investigators could not contact the complainant as the email was bogus or nonexistent.

“They could not get hold of the complainant because either the email was bogus or it did not exist and that is as far as they could take it.”

Placing the member at SANEB, where he originally was, instead of EPR, would have been in compliance with the General's instruction to return to SOCI.

“If Brigadier Nyuswa had placed him at SANEB, where he originally was, instead of EPR, that would still have been in compliance with your instruction that he must return to SOCI.”

Members of the South African Police Service sometimes cannot find a complainant who lodged a complaint, especially when complaints are reported anonymously as by whistle-blowers.

“in the execution of our duties as members of the South African Police Service , yes , there are instances where you find out that a person who lodged a complaint , you cannot find him . There are instances whereby people reporting things on an anonymity basis , like your so - called whistle - blower .”

A report states a complainant was investigated by the Port Shepstone Serious Organised Crime Unit but never responded and therefore was never interviewed.

“An email was sent to the complainant ... that Port Shepstone Serious Organised Crime Unit was investigating the matter , but he never responded . As a result , an interview was never conducted with him .”

General Senona called Colonel Jacob to his office with Warrant Officer Sander after receiving a complaint and engaged with him on these issues in a temporary transfer context.

“I called Colonel Jacob to come with Warrant Officer Sander . After I received the complaint . Into my office .”

Warrant Officer Sander was temporarily placed (transferred) following the complaint, but Colonel Jacob was not part of the meeting where this transfer was discussed.

“he was asked who was the acting Provincial Commander at the time and he testified that he does not remember and that he does not know anything about this temporary transfer . He suggests that he was not part of a meeting where Warrant Officer Sander was informed of the complaint and their transfer .”

Colonel Jacob was appointed Acting Provincial Commander from 29 January until 18 February 2024 during the period a complaint was received and acted upon.

“you appointed him Acting Provincial Commander for the period Brigadier Nyuswa was on leave . Which is the period of when this complaint was received and acted upon .”

General Senona confirmed he appointed Colonel Jacob Acting Provincial Commander from 29 January to 18 February 2024, which confirms his evidence-in-chief.

“Colonel Jacob who was appointed to act in that period , which confirms my evidence - in - chief .”

Colonel Jacob testified he does not know who was acting Provincial Commander at the time of the complaint and denied knowledge of Warrant Officer Sander's temporary transfer or suspension.

“he says he does not know who was acting in that period . He discounts the possibility it was him . He testified that he did not know of when Warrant Officer Sander was temporarily suspended , transferred is the word , as you testified , and he categorically denied that he was a part of that meeting .”

Maj General Senona signed the letter involving Warrant Officer Sander and confirmed he was present when called.

“this letter was signed by me. He was there. I ... I called him because he was acting to come with Warrant Officer Sander to my office and that is where I effected this letter on page 475”

Warrant Officer Sander was temporarily placed at another post pending investigation on instruction from head office, not decided solely by Maj General Senona.

“I was complying with the directive from national office ... It is not the suspension, it is the temporary placement pending the outcome of the investigation ... The temporary placement was not your decision ... You executed an instruction from General Surajbali.”

Maj General Senona complied with directives from the National Head of DPCI who delegates correspondence to an executive support officer level of a Major General.

“At national office DPCI ... there is a post called executive support at the level of a Major General ... The national head ... does not sit and write letters ... that person holding this post will do those type of correspondences through directive given by the National Head ... I received that directive and complied with it.”

Instructions related to temporary placement of Warrant Officer Sander came from General Libiya via or through Major General Surajbali; General Surajbali alone does not have authority to give instructions.

“Ordinarily, yes... The directive would have come from General Libiya, not from [Maj General Surajbali], if all he is, or he is, is an executive assistant to General Libiya ... Because she does not have authority to give instructions ... You are hundred percent on the dot ...”

If directives were from head office (General Libiya), decisions to remove and restore Warrant Officer Sander would also come from head office; it was not Maj General Senona's own decision.

“If you were acting on the instruction from head office, which is General Libiya, surely the decision to restore or to return Warrant Officer Sander to SOCI ... could also not be your decision ... The return ... also has to be based on an instruction from head office ...”

There is no email evidence showing Major General Surajbali instructed Maj General Senona to temporarily place Warrant Officer Sander at another post.

“Now here in that chain of emails is there an instruction that Warrant Officer Sander be placed on, be temporarily transferred? ... I confirm on this document it is not there ...”

Major General Senona took the initiative to place a Warrant Officer temporarily elsewhere pending the finalization of an investigation despite instructions to the contrary.

“Instruction was that placed him temporarily elsewhere until the finalisation of the investigation... I took it upon myself to place him back”

There is a culture in the police to comply with instructions first and complain later if unhappy about the decision.

“Because, I must say, we comply with instructions, and if you are not happy with it, you comply and complain. That is the culture of the police.”

Brigadier Nyuswa stated that Warrant Officer Sander requested to be returned to SOCI, but General Senona instructed him that he must go to EPR instead.

“At some point, Warrant Officer came to speak to me about returning to SOCI... General Senona said Warrant Officer Sander must go to EPR”

General Senona denies recalling telling Brigadier Nyuswa that Warrant Officer Sander must go to EPR and states he decided to place him at Supply Chain pending investigation.

“I do not recall telling him that he must go to EPR. It is me who took a decision to put him at Supply Chain...”

There is an ongoing investigation around allegations that Warrant Officer Sander is involved in the distribution of drugs which has not yet cleared him.

“There was an investigation around allegations of drugs, that the Warrant Officer Sander is involved in the distribution of drugs... that investigation has not been concluded as he was not cleared”

The investigation could not reach the complainant concerning the drug allegations against Warrant Officer Sander, and despite attempts to contact, the complainant has not been found.

“The investigation is still continuing... we tried to get hold of the complainant, and we have not found the complainant... We have emailed the complainant...”

Warrant Officer Sander had lodged a complaint about exhibits getting lost against certain people, including Colonel Jacob who testified that exhibits were removed and not fully accounted for.

“He mentioned that he lodged a complaint... about exhibits getting lost against certain people... including Colonel Jacob, one of the people against whom he was saying they took exhibits out and then those exhibits were not fully accounted for.”

A Warrant Officer charged criminally received exhibits which he was supposed to send to forensic but never sent them and did something else with them; an investigation was conducted and consequence management was applied.

“there was a Warrant Officer who was charged, who received exhibits, who was supposed to send them to forensic, and he never sent them. He did whatever he did with them, and then an investigation was conducted. That person was charged criminally.”

The investigation against Warrant Officer Sander lasted almost two years with no positive outcome, and support is expressed for his return to his previous post at SOCI/SANEB.

“this investigation against him is almost two years, as the Commissioner also advised me, and nothing at this stage positively came out in relation to that investigation. Yes, I will not have a problem if he goes back there.”

Brigadier Naicker visited Port Shepstone to inspect certain SANEB dockets and was informed about cocaine stored in a safe at an office, which caused discomfort due to inadequate security.

“On 20-21-07-29, Brigadier Naicker visited Port Shepstone as he needed to inspect certain SANEB dockets. He was accompanied by two members of Pretoria SOCI SANEB. Brigadier Naicker then spoke to me privately about the consignment of Cocaine that was stored in the safe at my office, and it was clear that he knew it was stored by us. I informed the Brigadier that I was not comfortable with it being stored in my office as the security of my office is not up to standard.”

The knowledge of the storage of drugs at the exhibit office became known to others though it is unclear how they obtained this information, and Colonel Prinsloo is implied to have told others but did not inform the Commission.

“they went aside and discussed the issue of the storage of drugs that were there and he never informed the Commission while he was here”

Brigadier Naicker was present at the inspection to check on certain SANEB cases and came with two Warrant Officers, but never informed the Commission about the visit or the storage of drugs found there.

“this Brigadier was there, and Prinsloo confirmed it, he was there. He came with two Warrant Officers to do inspections on certain SANEB cases ... they went aside and discussed the issue of the storage of drugs that were there and he never informed the Commission while he was here”

If the Exhibit Office register at Port Shepstone reflects storage of drugs on 23rd, then anyone with access to that register would know of the drug storage at the DPCI Port Shepstone office.

“if these exhibits had to be logged or recorded on the 23rd at the, in the book, the SAP 13 at Port Shepstone, then it means anybody who has access to that also knows that the drugs are stored at the DPCI Port Shepstone office”

Colonel Prinsloo did not inform Brigadier Naicker about the suspected cocaine; instead, Brigadier Naicker informed Colonel Prinsloo about it, not the other way around.

“your correct answer to Commissioner Khumalo would be no, that is not what you were saying ... Yes, it is not Colonel Prinsloo who informed Brigadier Naicker”

Brigadier Naicker did not inform the Commission about his visit with the Warrant Officers and the drugs stored, raising questions why he never reported this to the Commission despite discussing it with the District Commissioner.

“He does not say the Brigadier when he was there, he came with two Warrant Officers. No now the question is, I am saying there is a probability that also these two Warrant Officers might know, might have knowledge of it because he was travelling with them. Now, why never informed the Commission? I do not know”

Colonel Prinsloo told Brigadier Naicker about the consignment of suspected cocaine stored at the exhibit office.

“It is Colonel Prinsloo who says Brigadier Naicker talked to him aside and informed him about the consignment that is still here”

Colonel Prinsloo clearly knew that the suspected cocaine was stored at the office, but did not inform the Commission.

“Colonel Prinsloo made the observation that it was clear that he knew it was stored by us”

Brigadier Naicker repeatedly reported safety issues but claimed that reporting to head office would have led to charges against him, creating an atmosphere of intimidation and non-reporting to the Commission.

“he said he reported over and over the issues of the safety to Brigadier Nyuswa, but he said if he reported it to head office, he was going to be charged”

Brigadier Naicker did not inform the Commission about the safety issues, fearing charges if he reported it to the head office.

“he said if he reported it to head office, he was going to be charged in this and this and this and that”

Maj-Gen Senona stated that very limited people must know about the storage issue discussed, though it sounded that a number of people actually knew about the storage.

“even though I said very limited people must know, but it sounds that a number of people know about the storage.”

Maj-Gen Senona was found not guilty and discharged on all charges in a disciplinary case instituted against him.

“The disciplinary that was instituted against me, I was found not guilty and discharged on all charges.”

Maj-Gen Senona prepared a factual report about the theft of drugs at Port Shepstone for General Mosikili, based on information provided to him by Brigadier Nyuswa.

“I requested him to get me the information, and he gave me a draft. And then out of the draft, I did rectify whatever I had to, and then I read it. I was satisfied and then I sent it to the Deputy National Head by then.”

Maj-Gen Senona denied ever misleading anyone regarding the events of 22 June 2021 and the subsequent theft of drugs.

“I never misled any person.”

Maj-Gen Senona disagreed with the assertion that he misled General Mosikili about the events and circumstances of 22 June 2021 and the subsequent theft.

“I disagree with the fact that I misled the General.”

At the time of writing his statement and report, the witness did not know and still does not know the names of the ORS members involved in the operation.

“when I write my statement, I did not know. Even now, I do not think I am aware of the names of those ORS members, Commissioners”

The harbour at the port, including all port entries, is managed by members attached to the Operational Responses (ORS) division of the South African Police Services, and the witness does not know the names of the ORS members stationed there permanently for policing purposes.

“the harbour is managed by members attached to the ORS. ORS is Operational Responses, a division within the South African Police Services. So the harbour is, all the port of entries are managed by the ORS ... there are members that are stationed there on a permanent basis, policing the harbour”

In the witness's initial report, the names of DPCI members were listed but the ORS members involved in the seizure were not identified as the witness did not know them at the time.

“in your statement, you list the DPCI members. You then say they went with ORS members, but you do not list the ORS members. So it becomes interesting who of the ORS members took part in the seizure”

During the testimony referencing Sergeant Kubendren Govender's statement CJC 261, it was established that the so-called ORS members relied upon were actually not part of the operation.

“we established that the so-called ORS members here relied upon were actually not part of the operation”

Sergeant Govender's statement clarifies that he was called by Colonel Jacob after the container was already opened, and the seal was broken, for the purpose of requesting assistance to transport the drugs, implying the ORS members were not present at the seal breaking.

“Sergeant Govender states that he was called by Colonel Jacob after the container was opened, and it was for purposes of requesting assistance to transport the drugs”

MAJ-GENSENONA states he only receives reports, reads and dispatches them, and does not personally confirm the presence or identities of persons involved in reported operations.

“My responsibilities are at a strategic position, where I receive the reports, read them, when I am happy, I dispatch them... I do not go and confirm and check who was there, who was not there”

MAJ-GENSENONA admits he did not do his own investigation or research and relied on the reports and information prepared and provided by Brigadier Nyuswa and others to compile his own report.

“I never went and did my own research and investigation and wrote the report. I said Brigadier Nyuswa wrote it to me and then I checked it. Then I was happy with it... I was required to provide a factual report”

In the report to General Mosikili, MAJ-GENSENONA claimed the seal breaking happened in the presence of DPCI and ORS members, but this is factually incorrect according to the statements provided, including by Colonel Jacob and Sergeant Govender.

“the claim you made in your report to General Mosikili that at the operation when the seal was broken, that happened in the presence of DPCI members and ORS members. And I say that is factually incorrect”

ADV SELLO SC maintains that MAJ-GENSENONA misled General Mosikili regarding the presence of ORS members at the operation, despite possible being misled himself due to inaccurate reports.

“I maintain that you misled her because that is factually inaccurate, what you have set out in the report about presence of ORS members... I suggest to you that to the extent that you misled General Mosikili, would be due to the fact that you, in turn, were misled because the report was prepared for you”

Sergeant Govender's statement clarifies that the seal was not broken in the presence of the ORS members at the scene, as they were called after the seal was already broken and the container opened.

“That the seal was not broken in their presence. In a sense that, he says, when they were called to the scene by Colonel Jacob, the seal was already broken and the container was open. So even on the claim, on the basis that it happened in their presence... is not factually correct if they are to be believed”

MAJ-GENSENONA states he did not intentionally mislead anyone and submitted the report as presented to him, without visiting the crime scene or independently verifying information.

“I will never, ever come and mislead my superior... I wrote what I am told... I did not have any reason to doubt whatever report was provided to me... I was not there... I was informed... I do not think that I will sit and intentionally mislead my superior or come here and lie before the Commission”

ADV SELLO SC suggests any misleading of General Mosikili by MAJ-GENSENONA was due to MAJ-GENSENONA being misled by prepared reports, not intentional deception.

“I suggest to you that to the extent that you misled General Mosikili, would be due to the fact that you, in turn, were misled because the report was prepared for you”

MAJ-GENSENONA suggests the possibility that Sergeant Govender or the information provided to compile the report was incorrect, but denies any intentional misleading.

“Maybe this Sergeant is lying or the information that was provided to compile this report is incorrect, but it is not me who intentionally misled”

MAJ-GENSENONA does not know Sergeant Govender personally and therefore cannot verify the accuracy of his statement.

“Even this Sergeant Govender that the SC is referring to, I do not even know this person”

ADV SELLO SC clarifies that he is not alleging there was an intention to mislead, only that the report was inaccurate.

“For the record, I want to say, I am not saying that there was an intention to mislead, no. That is not what I am saying”

Maj-Gen Senona denies intentionally misleading his superior regarding a report prepared by his subordinates.

“I took offence very serious because I did not. If it is me who sat down and write this report on my own, although I appended my signature, I will say, ja, but it is not me. It is my subordinates who prepared this report, who had information to assist me to report to my superiors.”

MAJ-GENSENONA states he has no reason to mislead General Mosikili as all reports leaving his office are prepared by others who report to him, and any mistake would not be intentional.

“All the reports that leave my office are prepared by people who are reporting to me... if there are mistakes, it is not that there was an intention to mislead any person”

Adv Baloy explains to Senona that the statement in the report about ORS members witnessing the breaking of the seal is factually incorrect.

“A statement that says to General Mosikili the seal was broken in the presence of ORS members is an incorrect statement, right? ... that statement is incorrect factually, because members of ORS tell us in their statements, and Jacob accepts that, that they did not witness the breaking of the seal. They were just brought in to transport, to provide transport.”

Statement in report that ORS members witnessed the seal being broken is factually incorrect, as confirmed by evidence and statements of Govender and Colonel Jacob.

“The container was open. The seal was broken in the presence of ORS members. We now know from other evidence, including that statement of Govender, but we also know from Colonel Jacob who has accepted that ORS members were not present when the seal was broken.”

General Senona took the statement that ORS members were present during the breaking of the seal from Nyuswa, who gave him a report to that effect.

“You give an explanation where you take that statement from. You say Nyuswa, I think it is, gave you a report, and that is what he said, and that is where you get that statement.”

Senona denies intentionally misleading his superior and clarifies that he receives reports prepared by others and does not personally write them.

“... I receive reports. I can go with it, but not that I misled my superior. I might be suspended or expelled. I have experienced a lot of disciplinary cases since I came here. ... I am an honest person. Me and lies, we lie parallel. ... I do not want to be expelled before I go on pension for things that I did not do. I have just been cleared.”

Adv Sello clarifies that the statement implying ORS members were involved in the operation is factually incorrect.

“And perhaps I should clarify to General Senona and his team that the statement as couched creates an impression that the operation involved ORS members. And I am saying from the evidence tendered before this Commission, that is factually incorrect.”

Senona expresses fear that he might receive another suspension or be intimidated at home for coming to the Commission and telling the truth.

“I am also afraid I might be getting another one Monday or they might come to my house over the weekend and give me another one. What have I done by me coming here?”

Maj-Gen Senona did not personally attend the scene nor participate in operational handling or processing of 41 kg seizure, limited to oversight and administrative decisions.

“My involvement was limited to oversight and administrative decisions after being briefed by Operational Commanders.”

Senona is aware of the SAPS protocol on Search, Seizure, Handling, Processing and Disposition of Illegal Drugs, a document he partially knows from prior experience and training, but was office-bound from 2011 and not attending crime scenes.

“I have seen this document when I was here in January. Part of it, I am aware of the content, part of the content, but not the entire document. ... I attended the detective course when I was appointed as a Detective in 1989. ... I was office-bound since 2011. Being a manager, overseeing things, not attending to crime scenes or dealing with certain things.”

The Unit Commander reports operational crime scene handling to the Provincial Commander, a Brigadier, who then reports to the General, who reviews and authorizes reports after seeking clarity if needed. Members of the DPCI undergo training in crime scene processing under a curriculum called Resolving of Crime Course, which includes necessary protocols such as cordoning off crime scenes and calling the LCRC.

“The Unit Commander will report, provide reports to the Provincial Commander, who is a level of a Brigadier. A Brigadier will read once he is happy, he reports to me. I receive reports. I will read it. If I need clarity seeking questions, I will send it back. They will rectify and then I sign it. So part of this, I saw that during those years, in terms of processing the crime scenes, we know the crime scene must be cordoned off and you must call the LCRC and all those kind of stuff. It is something that is in the curriculum of the current course that is called Resolving of Crime Course. All the members of the DPCI underwent that type of training.”

Police officers who conducted the operation admitted or accepted that they messed up in handling the scene, including errors with registering and storing exhibits.

“The police officers who conducted the operation actually admitted or accepted that they had messed up with regard to the handling of the scene and indeed even beyond. For example, going to Isipingo, how the registration of the exhibits took place, taking place without the exhibits being placed in the exhibit bags and even the question of where they were stored. They basically, in the end, accepted that they messed up.”

The General as head of the DPCI is aware of the admissions by members that they messed up in handling the scene and is brought to his attention for further steps, especially following his disciplinary process clearance.

“I am speaking to the General as the head of the very DPCI members who have made the admissions. I do not depart from the premise that he is aware of the admissions made. This afternoon, the General comes back into the Commission to inform you that the disciplinary process that he was subjected to has cleared him, which I would expect would result in him going back to the position that he held. Now, the question that would arise is steps that he would take pursuant to learning what his members did on the day if he was not aware at the time. And it is for that purpose that I am bringing these facts to his attention.”

The General was cleared in a disciplinary process that is not related to the drug bust operation under inquiry.

“Just in case we are accused of misleading the Commission, just to clarify that the DCI in respect of which the General was cleared is not the one about the  what is it called ? Drug bust. Ja. So, ja, and if he gave that impression, then we, I think, General Khumalo, Commissioner Khumalo, maybe also wanted to assist me in that regard.”

The Legal Counsel asserts that all actions during the investigation were done according to the book and all little prescriptions were followed, contrary to admissions by operational members of non-compliance.

“Actually, that is not the case. I can assure you that everything was done according to the book and every little prescript was followed.”

General Senona expressed in a report to General Mosikili awareness that there were failings in how the scene was managed, implying he is aware of the applicable prescripts and non-compliance.

“I depart from the premise that he is aware of the prescripts, applicable prescripts, as to how the scene should be managed, and that there were failings in that regard. ... He expressed himself in the manner that he did in his report to General Mosikili about the handling of the scene.”

There is uncertainty if General Senona is aware at all times of non-compliance related to the seizure and storage of drugs and related property as per National Instruction 2017.

“He was not, hence he expressed himself in the manner that he did in his report to General Mosikili. So it is in the now.”

Police protocols require that the person in charge of the crime scene, regardless of rank, must be obeyed, and failure to follow protocol by members must result in consequence management.

“the person in charge of the crime scene , irrespective of rank , even if I go to a crime scene , Commissioners , as a General , and a Constable is entry level , is in charge of the crime scene , that person is in charge . I w i l l g i v e y o u a n e x a m p l e . A l o t o f c r i m e s c e n e s , y o u w i l l s e e t h e M i n i s t e r o f P o l i c e , t h e N a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n e r, t h e N a t i o n a l H e a d , t h e y g o t o t h e c r i m e s c e n e s . Th e i r s o l e p u r p o s e o f g o i n g t h e r e i s t o g e t f a c t s a n d c o n g r a t u l a t e t h e m e m b e r s f o r t h e i r g o o d w o r k . A n d t h e y e x p e c t t h a t t h o s e p r o t o c o l s m u s t b e f o l l o w e d . T h e s a m e a p p l i e s t o m e . B u t I c a n t e l l y o u t h a t i f t h e m e m b e r s h a v e20 c o n f e s s e d o r m a d e a d m i s s i o n s t h a t t h e y d i d n o t f o l l o w t h e p r o t o c o l , c o n s e q u e n c e m a n a g e m e n t n e e d s t o a p p l y .”

Even if police arrest people, it creates gaps impacting the admissibility of evidence due to crime scene handling protocols.

“T h a n k s , C o m m i s s i o n e r s . I a m a w a r e n o w. A n d t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s i s t h a t e v e n i f y o u a r r e s t p e o p l e , t h a t t h i n g w i l l c r e a t e g a p s i n e n s u r i n g t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e . H a n d l i n g t h e c r i m e s c e n e i s a d e l i c a t e t h i n g . We c a l l i t a h o l y p l a c e . A n d t h e p e r s o n i n c h a r g e o f t h e c r i m e s c e n e , i r r e s p e c t i v e o f r a n k , e v e n i f I g o t o a c r i m e s c e n e , C o m m i s s i o n e r s , a s a G e n e r a l , a n d a C o n s t a b l e i s10 e n t r y l e v e l , i s i n c h a r g e o f t h e c r i m e s c e n e , t h a t p e r s o n i s i n c h a r g e .”

General Senona claims he is facing significant personal and professional difficulty as a consequence of testifying before the Commission, including suspension and litigation related to a drug theft case.

“I a m g o i n g t h r o u g h , f o r l a c k o f a b e t t e r w o r d , a n d a p o l o g i e s u p f r o n t , I a m g o i n g t h r o u g h h e l l b e c a u s e o f m e c o m i n g h e r e a n d t e s t i f y i n g . T h a t i s a p o s s i b i l i t y. Th e l a s t t i m e I r a i s e d i s s u e s o f s a f e t y, a d e c i s i o n w a s g i v e n f o r m e t o r e a d p e o p l e ' s n a m e s . I a m h a v i n g l i t i g a t i o n n o w. O v e r a n d a b o v e t h a t , I w a s s u s p e n d e d a n d s a y e v i d e n c e w a s g i v e n u n d e r o a t h b e f o r e t h e C o m m i s s i o n . C u r r e n t l y, t h e o t h e r o n e , I h a v e a n e w o n e t h a t I r e c e i v e d a f t e r w h e n I a p p e a r e d h e r e o n t h e 1 s t . Th e y s a y I a m b e i n g c h a r g e d b e c a u s e o f t h e s t o r a g e a n d t h e f t o f t h e d r u g s . I t e s t i f i e d i n J a n u a r y . I s it n o t o n e a n d t h e s a m e t h i n g ? I s s o m e b o d y n o t a b u s i n g h i s p o w e r s t o t r y ? I d o n o t20 k n o w w h a v e I d o n e t o t h e s e p e o p l e . B u t I w a n t t o a s s i s t t h e C o m m i s s i o n . T h a t i s w h y I c a m e b a c k .”

General Senona decided to take the drug bust evidence to Port Shepstone for storage due to flooding problems at Amanzimtoti forensic lab.

“H e s u g g e s t e d a n d s a i d , G e n e r a l , w e c a n t a k e t h e s e t h i n g s t o P o r t S h e p s t o n e b e c a u s e o n a p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n , w e d i d s t o r e H a s h i s h u n t i l ... w e d i d n o t h a v e a p r o b l e m .”

Brigadier Nyuswa informed General Senona about a drug bust, advised preparing reports, and communicated that Isipingo lacks capacity to store the drugs.

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

General Senona made an administrative decision to let detective services investigate a theft case and to let the district handle the investigation with assistance as needed from Head Office DPCI.

“... G e n e r a l S e n o n a m a d e a d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e D e t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s m u s t i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s c a s e . Y o u c a n n o t b e a v i c t i m a n d t h e n a t t h e s a m e t i m e y o u i n v e s t i g a t e y o u r o w n , y o u r s e l f . A n d f o r s o m e o t h e r r e a s o n s , H e a d O f f i c e d e c i d e d t o e s t a b l i s h a t e a m a n d t o o k t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n f r o m G e n e r a l D e t e c t i v e t o H e a d O f f i c e D P C I . M e , I t o o k a d e c i s i o n t h a t l e t t h e d i s t r i c t d o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . S h o u l d t h e y n e e d a n y a s s i s t a n c e , w e s h a l l a s s i s t .”

Warrant Officer Mpangase requested and returned the keys in relation to a drug bust investigation.

“I think it was Mpangase, Warrant Officer Mpangase that requested the keys and returned them”

Maj-Gen Senona was not aware of facilities in and around the area including Maydon Wharf Police Station, Umbilo, and others for storing drugs before shipment.

“I was not aware. Brigadier Nyuswa just came and briefed and suggested to me, and I have already responded to this question”

Maj-Gen Senona was informed by operational members that SAPS Isipingo did not have adequate storage facilities for seized drugs, and similarly the KZN FSL laboratory lacked adequate facilities.

“you were informed by operational members that SAPS Isipingo did not have adequate storage facilities and the last paragraph before the next question that you were informed that KZN FSL laboratory also lacked adequate facilities”

Maj-Gen Senona admitted he did not know where Maydon Wharf was and was not oriented about KwaZulu-Natal, thus was unfamiliar with facilities and police stations in the area relevant to his duties as DPCI head KZN between August 2020 and June 2022.

“I do not know where is Maydon Wharf. You say Maydon Wharf or Wadean Wharf, I do not know... since August 2020 when you took office until June 2022, you did not acquaint yourself with the environment and the facilities and the police stations you may have to work with... I was not even orientated about KwaZulu-Natal”

Maj-Gen Senona visited his offices and limited other specified offices and met his people but was not taken around police stations nor forced to do so by his job.

“I visited my offices. I visited Newcastle. I am having an office of SOCI in Newcastle... I visited my offices in Richards Bay... I visited a SOCI office in Pietermaritzburg... I visited my offices at Durban Organised Crime where SOCI is SOCI at 136... I visited the Serious Corruption in a Commercial City Building... But police stations, no. It is the Provincial Commissioner who is in charge of the police station, not me... I have listed my offices that I visited that I have authority over”

Maj-Gen Senona admitted he did not know the police stations and storage facilities where seized drugs must be booked into SAP 13s and that as DPCI head KZN he is not responsible for police stations—this is the Provincial Commissioner's responsibility.

“I know where they are, I can take you. But police stations, no. It is the Provincial Commissioner who is in charge of the police station, not me... I know nothing about police stations and such storage facilities”

Maj-Gen Senona said after a theft of drugs, all members were able to house the drugs in various offices for the busts made, and that normally a person in his position would not know about such matters in a very short time.

“After the theft, everybody was able to house the drugs, the busts that we have made, in that document that the SC is referring to... Under normal circumstances, a person in my position will never know those things in a very short space of time”

ADV Sello suggests that Maj-Gen Senona ought to be acquainted with whether there are sufficient facilities at police stations for seized heroin and cocaine and that he is not aware of such facilities.

“I would have thought that is a matter that would interest you... based on S2 and the volume of Heroin and Cocaine you seize, that you would at least acquaint yourself with whether or not there are sufficient facilities... But from what you say, you know nothing about police stations and such storage facilities”

Maj-Gen Senona states he was charged, investigated, and suspended for the handling of the crime scene and theft regarding these drugs, despite no evidence of wrongdoing on his part.

“I am now charged, investigated, and suspended, because these things were not, the handling of the crime scene and the theft, the storage and the theft.”

Senior members of the police including General Sithole (former National Commissioner), General Mkhwanazi, former Minister General Cele, and former National Head General Lebeya are connected to the case involving the theft of 541 kg of drugs.

“I see there is General Sithole, the former National Commissioner. I see there is General Mkhwanazi. I see the former Minister General Cele. I see the former National Head General Lebeya... those are Mandrax... the place is the place where the drugs were stolen, this 541 kg.”

A group of between 5 and 10 people attacked the Forensic Science Laboratory in Pretoria, held security guards and tied them, and one police officer was shot during the incident related to an attempted theft of drugs.

“A group of people, between 10 and 5, attacked the Forensic Science Laboratory in Pretoria. They held these security guards, tied them... one policeman, officer, was shot by this group.”

After seizure of 14 bags of dagga by Maj-Gen Senona's office at Richards Bay, nine bags went missing after being booked into SAP 13 police station and samples were needed for forensic testing.

“My office at Richards Bay went and seized 14 bags, big bags of Dagga... after a week, when they went there to take samples to send to forensic, nine of the bags were missing. A docket was opened.”

Maj-Gen Senona indicates the alarm system at Port Shepstone was armed though not linked to armed response, and patrols did security between 18:00 and midnight and between 2 and 4 during the day.

“The patrols at the offices and make OB entries between 18:00 and 12 midnight, between 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock during the day... the alarm was armed, although it was not linked to the security company.”

Evidence from Colonel Prinsloo and Brigadier Nyuswa shows the alarm system at Port Shepstone was not functioning due to loadshedding on that day.

“The evidence of Colonel Prinsloo and Brigadier Nyuswa... has established that the alarm system was not operational... because of loadshedding, the alarm... it could not work.”

Maj-Gen Senona states that the alarm was armed at Port Shepstone but was not linked to security company notification to the Unit Commander, meaning the commander would not automatically know of emergencies via the alarm.

“The alarm was armed, although it was not linked to the security company... the Unit Commander's phone must also be linked so that once something happens... he must also get a notification... it happened with me while I was still a Unit Commander.”

The alarm system at the office was not linked to an armed response service and merely made noise without triggering any security response.

“it was not linked to an armed response system ... it was as good as not there ... it just makes noise and it ends there”

Members secured the back security door of the office with chain and padlock and made an OB entry, then activated the alarm and locked the office.

“The members then left and Warrant Officer VandenBerg secured the back security door by the kitchen with chain and padlock and he made an OB entry. We then activated the alarm and locked the office.”

The contract with the armed response company expired in March 2020, and the alarm system would not function if there was electricity or load shedding issues.

“contract with the armed response company expired in March 2020 ... if there was electricity or load shedding issues, it will not work”

Even if the alarm got triggered and made noise, no one would know as the office and nearby businesses would be closed, and the alarm would ring until someone came in the following workday to deactivate it.

“even if it got triggered and made noise, no one would know as the office would be closed and nearby business would also be closed ... the alarm would just ring until somebody come in the following work day”

MAJ-GEN SENONA limited response on the SAP 13 register to the Isipingo SAP 13 and did not address storage facilities at Port Shepstone in that context, despite questions about it.

“your response to the Commission in 29 January ‘26 confined itself to the Isipingo SAP 13 ... I want to go beyond that ... because I want to confine my question to the Port Shepstone storage”

The District Commissioner was requested to inform members to patrol after an incident over the weekend to inspect the office, but the first person on Monday failed to go down and check the office despite abnormal conditions, so someone else had to inspect it on Sunday.

“he requested the District Commissioner to inform his members to patrol ... he went there on Sunday. He failed to go down and double check ... Monday, he is the first person in the office ... he saw something that is not normal ... he does not go down and check ... so I did that”

MAJ-GEN SENONA testified that drugs were seized at Isipingo police station and that Isipingo members booked the exhibits at SAPS Isipingo, but Isipingo did not have storage facilities; seizure could be recorded in SAP 13.

“there were drugs seized there ... it is a police station called Isipingo ... members went to Isipingo to book the exhibits ... members that Isipingo said they do not have storage facility but seizure can be written into the SAP 13”

MAJ-GEN SENONA confirmed in evidence he confined himself to SAPS Isipingo when responding to a question but did not answer whether other suitable storage facilities were available for seized drugs, as required by Regulation 10(6).

“you confined the answer only to the Isipingo SAP 13 ... that question you do not answer ... about other suitable facilities ... in Regulation 10(6)”

MAJ-GEN SENONA said he responded to the question about other storage facilities but could not produce written evidence of that response.

“I responded here, now, two minutes ago ... I did not written it, but I responded”

MAJ-GEN SENONA and Brigadier Nyuswa drove first to Isipingo then diverted to Port Shepstone after a phone call and never reached Isipingo on the day of the seizure.

“We never reached Isipingo ... he was talking on the phone and then we diverted to Port Shepstone”

MAJ-GEN SENONA testified he went to Port Shepstone to check the strongroom where drugs were stored after the seizure, it was the first time he saw those safes.

“I went there at Port Shepstone when the drugs were stored there ... it was the first time I saw those safes there”

MAJ-GEN SENONA went to Port Shepstone to satisfy himself about the strongroom facilities and inspect them, introducing himself to members present.

“the purpose for me to go to Port Shepstone was to also satisfy myself about the strongroom ... I was addressing the members, introducing myself”

General Senona instructed members during a meet and greet in Port Shepstone to visit between 8:00 and 00:00 and gave specific instructions about safeguarding dockets and properties.

“during your meet and greet visit at Port Shepstone, you instructed them to visit between 8:00 and 00:00... during the meet and greet, I informed them... that it is important that we must safeguard our own dockets and properties as the members”

General Senona managed safety of seized drugs by taking the keys and placing them in his safe at the office and instructing the Unit Commander to ensure members visited the offices at intervals.

“you stated paragraph 2 that you manage the safety of the drugs by taking the keys and placing them in your safe at the office and requesting and instructing the Unit Commander to ensure members visit the offices at intervals”

General Senona did not think it necessary to deploy additional manpower or patrol units to guard the offices after the seizure because he relied on Colonel Prinsloo to indicate if additional security was needed.

“The directive I gave for the visit, at that stage for me it was sufficient enough unless if Colonel Prinsloo indicated that he needed additional, I would have done that. But he never, there was no stage where he requested additional manpower”

General Senona confirms that a safe was cut twice from outside and rejects insinuations that the key was used to stage the event, explaining that cutting twice posed a high risk and made loud noise that would invite detection.

“I am trying to put this on record before the Commissioners... the safe was cut twice and the safe was cut from outside... that narrative is very much offensive to suggest because the keys were in my possession, then a key was used and then thereafter the cutting... The risk being arrested or being attacked by the police... the sound of a grinder, it makes a lot of noise... There is no staging”

General Senona stated the narrative that someone opened a safe with a key and then ground it open is insane, stressing that the keys were in his possession and there was no staging or tampering.

“That narrative is very much insane... some without description will do that if it is easy for you to open with a door, with a key... the key was used and then thereafter the cutting... There is no staging, Commissioners”

General Senona asserts that if he had the keys, he could have used them to open and take the suspected cocaine without cutting the safe, questioning why the safe was cut twice.

“if you had the keys, could use them to open, why not just open and take the suspected cocaine without cutting?”

People who stole drugs are known and should have been arrested.

“people who stole the drugs are known ... I will be happy if they are being arrested”

Specialised units under Directorate of Priority Crime Investigations (DPCI) and Division Forensic Services may keep separate SAP13 property registers to record exhibits, with Divisional Commissioner or Head DPCI consent.

“Specialised units resorting under the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigations, DPCI, and the Division Forensic Services may, with the consent of the Divisional Commissioner or Head, DPCI, keeps separate SAP13 property register to record exhibits”

MAJ-GEN SENONA was not previously aware that the DPCI with the approval of the Head can store exhibits at a designated facility, but acknowledges it after seeing the National Instruction document.

“I was not aware ... I am seeing it and then I am taking note of it”

MAJ-GEN SENONA admitted to previously responding to a question about the National Instruction during the January testimony but could not fully recall his response now.

“I cannot recollect 100% how I responded to that question ... I am taking note of it”

There is a National Instruction that the DPCI, with the approval of the Head, can store exhibits in a facility that is South African National Standards (SONS).

“in relation to the storage there, I think there is a National Instruction that the DPCI, with the approval of the head, can store these things ... at a facility that is South African SONS”