Hearing day 117

Witness I stayed at Mr Matlala's family property in Mamelodi for approximately two years from 2023.

“in 2023, I stayed at Mr Matlala's family property in Mamelodi for a period of approximately two years”

In September 2023, Witness I was attacked by four men at his residence in Mamelodi and seriously injured.

“On or about September 2023, there was an attempt on my life. I was residing in Mamelodi when a group of four men attacked me at my residence...hit my head with a metal object, resulting in a serious head injury...breaking my left hand and several fingers...They then stole my state-issued firearm and left me for dead”

State-issued firearm stolen during attack was later recovered by TO MS members.

“The state firearm was later recovered by TO MS members”

Captain Zungu warned Witness I the attackers may return and suggested temporary relocation and arranged a house for Witness I, which belonged to Mr Matlala.

“Captain Zungu warned that I was injured and that the group may come back and finish the job. He then suggested that I relocate temporarily and that he will arrange a house for me...property belonged to Mr Matlala”

Witness I did not meet or communicate directly with Mr Matlala during his stay at the property, only via Captain Zungu and Brigadier Mokoena later.

“During my stay, I did not meet or talk to Mr Matlala...I have had no direct communication with Mr Matlala until I met him with Captain Zungu and Brigadier Mokoena”

Witness I received warnings that senior members were unhappy with his testimony and that there was a plan to disclose his stay at Mr Matlala's house to discredit him.

“After my testimony, I received a number of calls warning me that the seniors are not happy with my testimony...there is a plan to disclose my stay at Mr Matlala's house as a way of discrediting me...I considered it a threat”

The DPCI TO MS mandate has been dismantled under General Mbotho and Brigadier Mokoena, limiting members' tactical equipment access and overtime compensation, resulting in resignations or transfers.

“I have been informed by members that, as threatened by General Mbotho, TO MS's mandate has been completely dismantled...members forced to surrender tactical equipment such as rifles...not allowed for immediate response...members who work overtime are not compensated...dedicated members have either resigned or took transfers out of TO MS”

WITNESS I was requested to bring the SAP13 book from their office to the Pretoria West Training College as part of the 2021 cocaine seizure operation.

“I was requested to go to office, obtain SAP13 page 11 of 135 book from my office, and bring it to Pretoria West Training College, where the seized Cocaine was booked at for safety.”

In 2021, a truck carrying a boat containing one tonne of cocaine was seized during a bust operation involving SANEB and other office members at the scene.

“The 2021, it was a truck carrying a boat, which boat had one tonne of Cocaine.”

WITNESS I was called to the scene by a Commander and found members of SANEB Head Office and WITNESS I's office carrying out the seizure of cocaine from a truck carrying a boat.

“I was called in by my Commander to come to the scene. When I arrived there, I found members of SANEB Head Office and members of my office with a truck carrying a boat by the side. And they were taking out the contents from the boat, putting them on the ground, which was ultimately found to be Cocaine, which amounted to one tonne.”

In 2021, as Team Leader of SANEB, WITNESS I's members received a tip-off about a person transporting drugs to Pretoria; the team intercepted the person on N4 and found crystal meth worth about R600,000 in the vehicle.

“In 2021, as a Team Leader of SANEB, my members received a tip-off of a person who will be transporting drugs, bringing them to Pretoria. The SANEB team of Pretoria Organised Crime activated the information and intercepted the said person on N4. ... the vehicle contents were checked and Crystal Meth was found inside this vehicle worth about R600000.”

The consignment of cocaine seized in the 2021 operation was booked at Pretoria West Training College for safety instead of at a police station.

“Page 11 of 135 book from my office, and bring it to Pretoria West Training College, where the seized Cocaine was booked at for safety.”

The suspect driver in the 2021 crystal meth interception was arrested and detained at Boschkop; he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seventy years direct imprisonment.

“The suspect was arrested and detained at Boschkop, and through court proceedings, the driver ultimately changed his plea from not guilty and pleaded guilty, and he was sentenced to seventy years direct imprisonment.”

WITNESS I is familiar with the relevant framework for protocols on search, seizure, handling, processing, and disposal of illicit drugs and the National Instruction on Crime Scene Management.

“So you are familiar with the relevant framework, including the protocol on search, seizure, handling, processing, and disposal of illicit drugs, as well as the National Instruction on Crime Scene Management? Yes.”

WITNESS I led the SANEB Pretoria Organised Crime team during the 2021 crystal meth interception operation.

“I was leading the team on that operation.”

WITNESS I used the relevant legal and procedural documents when executing the 2021 operation.

“You used these documents, particularly in that 2021 operation? Yes.”

After the Aeroton operation and before transfer to TOMS, WITNESS I was not involved in another operation.

“After the Aeroton one, while you were still with SANEB, before you were transferred to TOMS, there was not another operation where you were involved in? No, not that I can recall, Commissioner.”

The 2021 drug operation led by WITNESS I took place in March, before the Aeroton operation.

“The 2021 operation, when in 2021? It was in March, Commissioner. Okay, so it was before the Aeroton operation? Yes, Commissioner.”

The person responsible at a crime scene either continues leading the scene until complete, or if not continuing, relevant people must take over.

“I think the person who is responsible at the scene, he either continues leading the scene up until the scene is complete, or if he is not going to continue with the scene, relevant people whom must take over the scene will take it over.”

WITNESS I informed other SAPS units with whom he was familiar when they encountered drug-related scenes where they would call WITNESS I for assistance.

“It is something I informed other units within SAPS, other unit members, whom I know.”

For drug-related scenes, DPCI needs to be in charge and is usually invited to take over.

“But in this instance, because it was drugs, DPC needs to be in charge. I believe that is the reason why it was invited.”

When WITNESS I arrived at the crime scene, DPCI Germiston and Johannesburg members were there but were just standing around and not doing anything.

“When I arrived, when I asked the members, it is DPCI Germiston and Joburg, they were just standing there. Nothing was being done in respect of the scene. They were just hanging around there on the scene.”

WITNESS I went to the scene after a WhatsApp notification about 23 bags of drugs leaving Durban for Gauteng, sourced from inquiry handled by the Commission's office.

“The reason for me to go to the scene with my member was because my member received a WhatsApp notification the previous day, the Thursday night, that there is 23 bags of drugs leaving Durban coming to Gauteng. And my member, the source was informing him in respect of the inquiry dealt with by your office.”

WITNESS I said personally he suspected the scene was linked to his office inquiry and decided he needed to be briefed fully to take over or request Warrant Officer Phakula to hand over the scene to him.

“Personally, as I suspected the scene to be linked to my office inquiry, that is why I made the decision that I need to be briefed about everything. After then, I will take over or I will ask Warrant Officer Phakula to hand over the scene to me.”

WITNESS I is not knowledgeable about what prescribes who is to take charge of a crime scene or what law or prescript determines transfer of charge at a crime scene.

“No, I am not knowledgeable, Commissioner.”

DPCI has a mandate to deal with drug-related matters.

“It is the mandate of DPCI that drug-related matters are dealt with by DPCI.”

There was an existing investigation related to the Aeroton scene, which could be part of that investigation.

“the fact that there is an existing investigation already, that the scene could be part of that investigation.”

Maj General Kadwa told the witness that Germiston DPCI will deal with the scene and evaded talking about the inquiry file by invoking SAPS chain of command, instructing the witness to address Brigadier Sekgobela instead.

“Major General Kadwa told me that Germiston DPCI will deal with the scene and I asked on what case number or inquiry number since there was none except the one from the Pretoria office . When I attempted to talk to Major General Kadwa about the inquiry file from my office , he essentially avoided talking to me by evoking … the SAPS chain of command and thus instructed me to rather address Brigadier Sekgobela instead of him directly.”

There was an inquiry opened around August 2020 relating to dealing drugs (heroin, also known as Nyaope) involving Tanzanian nationals in South Africa, operating in Gauteng, Free State and KwaZulu-Natal, and also using Uber drivers for transporting drugs.

“it was around August 2020 when Sergeant Masoma opened an inquiry... This is a request to open an inquiry for further investigations. Here it is alleged that persons as mentioned in Annexure A committed the offence of dealing drugs, Heroin, also known as Nyaope ... There is a group of Tanzanian nationals who are currently residing in South Africa. They sell drugs, Nyaope, for personal gain and also own businesses around Gauteng, Free State, KwaZulu-Natal as a cover-up for their illegal dealings ... They rely on Uber drivers for transporting drugs ...”

Drugs are smuggled into South Africa from Pakistan via Mozambique and other African borders, including Manguni KZN, Komatipoort, Mpumalanga and Beitbridge in Limpopo.

“they come in from Pakistan via Mozambique ... They are transported into the country through different African, South African, Southern African borders. In particular, mostly Manguzi KZN, Komatipoort, Mpumalanga and Beitbridge in Limpopo.”

The ongoing Aeroton drugs investigation is unrelated to the inquiry opened by Sergeant Mukwevho based on the drug trafficking from Pakistan through Mozambique to South Africa.

“what you were investigating already had nothing to do whatsoever with the drug bust at Aeroton ... It had nothing whatsoever. You may have gotten information from the same source, but that does not make the two the same.”

Witness I confirms they initially thought the tip-off related to the Masoma inquiry concerned drugs covered by that inquiry, but later realized it was a completely different cocaine drug from Brazil, unrelated to the inquiry.

“by then I did not know how it came . That came about later on .”

Witness I states they were briefed only by Warrant Officer Phakula upon arriving at the scene where cocaine bags were found, and did not discuss with other officers who had arrived earlier (DPCI Germiston and Johannesburg).

“I only spoke with Phakula , the Warrant , and it is when the scene I withdrew after the General came in from Intelligence . Speaking with Mashaba , it was after, when the intention to arrest them was brought .”

Witness I admits they did not discuss the drugs with all officers at the scene but only with Warrant Officer Phakula initially and spoke to Mashaba later when the intention to arrest was communicated.

“No , I was not , Commissioner, maybe I do not know the understanding . I did not discuss with all four of them . As I arrived , I only spoke with Phakula , the Warrant , and it is when the scene I withdrew after the General came in from Intelligence . Speaking with Mashaba , it was after , when the intention to arrest them was brought .”

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

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

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

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

Witness I confirms having seen the 2020 statement referred to by Adv Khumalo SC before attending Aeroton in July 2021 and acknowledges it relates to 'Nyaope'.

“It is a 2020 statement , Commissioner. ... Yes . ... So you knew that it related to Nyaope ? Yes .”

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

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

Witness I agrees it is a fair observation that Masoma does not appear as investigating officer in the Aeroton investigation diary, suggesting he was not the appointed investigator for that inquiry.

“Yes , Commissioner ?”

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

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

Witness I allegedly collaborated with the first three to legitimize the operation knowing they had no basis to be there.

“I am of the view that it is worse than that, that rather you conspired with the first three to legitimise the operation because you knew that they had no basis to be there.”

The diary does not show the appointment of a certain investigator; other people's names appear instead, suggesting misleading information about his appointment.

“I am putting to you that, in fact, he misled you or you are misleading us when you say he was appointed the Investigator. Otherwise, we would see it in the diary.”

According to the inquiry register by the office, the appointed person as the inquiry Investigator was Mukwe, not Masoma who never made any entry.

“In the inquiry register by the office, he is the appointed inquiry Investigator.”

Sergeant Phakula of the K9 Unit informed Witness I about being called to a scene involving a truck suspected of transporting 23 bags of drugs in Johannesburg.

“you testified yesterday that it was Sergeant Phakula of K-9 Unit who contacted you and told you that he was called to address a scene regarding a truck suspected of transporting 23 bags of drugs in the Johannesburg area”

A statement taken by IPID records that on the same day, Witness I received a call from Warrant Officer Phakula requesting assistance with a narcotic dog concerning a container transporting narcotics from Durban Harbour.

“a statement that was taken by IPID, and you will see there that that is the statement of Andrew Phakula ... requesting our assistance with narcotic dog concerning a container transporting narcotics from Durban Harbour”

On the way to the scene, Sergeant Sape contacted Unit Commander Lieutenant Colonel Du Plessis and got permission to assist Warrant Officer Phakula.

“Sergeant Sape immediately contacted our Unit Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Du Plessis, and asked for permission to assist Warrant Officer Phakula, and permission was granted”

Warrant Officer Phakula sent location on WhatsApp and asked if Witness I still has Lieutenant Colonel numbers from DPCI in Pretoria and also asked to sup ping (corrected to summon or tell) Witness I.

“After some few minutes, Warrant Officer Phakula sent location on my WhatsApp. He further asked if I still have Lieutenant Colonel … numbers from DPCI in Pretoria, and asked me to also supping [corrected summoning or telling] Witness I”

Witness I never knew Warrant Officer Phakula until the day of the operation; he only knew Sergeant Phakula and Sape.

“I never knew Warrant Officer Phakula until that day. The only person I knew was Sergeant Phakula and Sape.”

Warrant Officer Phakula told Witness I that the container is a duplicate of the inquiry file under investigation and promised to attend.

“he did not say anything about having told you about the scene and the 23 bags ... he was informed by Warrant Officer Phakula that the container is a duplicate of the inquiry you are investigating”

According to Witness I, if Warrant Officer Phakula knew him, Witness I does not know on what basis because he only knew Sergeant Phakula.

“If Warrant Officer Phakula knew me, I do not know on which basis because I only knew Sergeant Phakula.”

Witness I suggests that Sergeant Phakula may be lying in his recollection of the events, possibly because facts are not detailed as they should be.

“Sergeant Phakula is lying in his recollection of the events?”

A recorded meeting took place involving Witness I, a Colonel from Crime Intelligence, and Mr Mogotsi at Houghton.

“this is a recording of the meeting that took place between yourself, a Colonel from Crime Intelligence, and Mr Mogotsi, the Houghton meeting”

Man 2 in the transcript is the Crime Intelligence officer, Man 3 is Mr Mogotsi.

“Man 2 appears to have been the Crime Intelligence officer ... Man 3 appears to be Mr Mogotsi”

Witness I is referred to as Man 1 in a transcript of the recorded meeting, which is a true reflection of what transpired.

“Man 1 appears to have been you ... It is the true reflection of what transpired”

The transcript discusses events from Durban involving all participants who were involved and mentions the operation was legitimized at the scene, possibly by General Khan.

“When I arrived ... When I got there, within three minutes ... From the context, it appears to have been General Khan ... That is when they legitimised the operation”

Discussion about stopping General Khan's hearing, including a suggestion to write a letter to the Minister to make it official and thus avoid the hearing.

“now you are discussing what to do to stop General Khan's hearing. And there was a suggestion that a letter be written to the Minister. And again”

You were explaining to two gentlemen that you were called to legitimise certain operations involving persons referred to as Man 1 and Man 3, linked to organised crime.

“you were explaining to the two gentlemen that you are called to legitimise these operations”

Man 3 stated that pulling proper strings could take down people alone without needing Lebeya to promote the action.

“Man 3 says: “To pull proper strings, you can take these men down, these people. You can take them down alone.”

The plan was to make it official so that there would be no hearing by using the legitimacy of the inquiry to exclude the fact that certain individuals' presence was being legitimised.

“this, what we have just alluded we will make it official, then there is no hearing ... It was used to legitimise”

Witness I explained that they suspected they were being recorded and chose to play along to provide explanations that would please those recording.

“I did suspect that I am being recorded and that I will play along with whatever they are doing. And the comments I made or the explanation I made of legitimising is what I was informed by General Gerber when he consulted with me”

General Gerber conducted an investigation of General Kadwa and DPCI members and suspected that Witness I was being misled by the members using the inquiry.

“General Gerber did an investigation of General Kadwa and the DPCI members. When I consulted with him, the explanation ... he suspects that I was being misled in using the inquiry by these members”

Witness I knew the CI guy reported to General Khan and thus felt the need to give explanations to please General Khan's reporting channel.

“I knew the CI guy reports to General Khan. So I needed to give them what will please them. Because I knew immediately when I saw him that I knew that he is reporting to General Khan. And as I said that I needed to play along. I needed to give them what it will please them”

Witness I admits to telling a story to the two gentlemen, portraying it as the true account, which explained the justification for the three officers' presence in the inquiry.

“you do not deny telling them this and representing it as the truth ... you then portray that as the true account ... it is actually you who starts speaking about the story and you offer it to them”

Witness I denies knowing or communicating with Warrant Officer Phakula before the day they met, only communicating afterwards when they were released from prison.

“I did not know him and I never communicated with him, even on the same day or before. I only knew him on the same day ... I communicate with him. I think it was when they were released from prison”

Witness I asked Sergeant Phakula to bring a narcotic dog to confirm the dog's presence as sometimes Sergeant Phakula did not have the dog with him during operations.

“The reason I asked him to bring a narcotic dog ... sometimes I meet him, you find that he does not have a dog with him. So I needed to confirm that the dog is there”

Witness I met Sergeant Phakula without a dog when he was not on a narcotics operation, indicating that the dog was not present because the operation was unrelated to narcotics.

“When I met him without the dog, he was not on an operation. He was around ... He did not have his dog because it had nothing to do with a narcotics operation”

Witness I confirms that Sergeant Phakula was at a narcotics operation on the day he was called and requested to bring a narcotic dog to assist.

“Sergeant Phakula states clearly that on the day in question they were in possession of a narcotic dog and when Warrant Officer Phakula called, he requested their assistance using the narcotic dog and to bring the dog.”

Witness I was shown a WhatsApp message claiming to be from a source in Durban but was not told the source identity.

“He showed me a WhatsApp message, and I read through the message, and I asked the message comes from whom. He said my source in Durban.”

Witness I initially told Colonel Seobe he had a family thing to attend, not that he was going to High Court.

“W I T N E S S I”

Witness I was going to meet a representative at Johannesburg High Court related to custody issues, not to attend court personally.

“I was supposed to go meet someone who will represent me on the custody issue...I was not going to court.”

Witness I did report before leaving the scene but the content was incorrect or misrepresented what he was going to do.

“you did report, but what you reported was incorrect or you misrepresented what you were going to do.”

Witness I's commanding officer was Colonel Bok, who was off sick and standing in for her.

“she received a call from Colonel Bok inquiring about your whereabouts. At the time, Colonel Bok, who was your Commanding Officer, was off sick and she was standing in.”

Witness I denied any knowledge about specific operations and was not informed by members including Masoma about operational duties.

“My response to that was that I know nothing about such operation and that both members did not inform me of any operational duties that they will be part of or information that they had been working on, on the day in question.”

Witness I was reluctant to inform her Commanding Officer out of fear that information would be compromised at higher levels, possibly causing tip-offs.

“you had a fear or you were scared of the information being compromised at a higher level... initially you said conflict of interest or that if info gets out, people maybe tipped off.”

Witness I has no experience of her Commanding Officer compromising investigations but claims reporting up from Commanding Officer to Provincial level is where compromises occur.

“No, not my Commanding Officer. When I go to my Commanding Officer, he needs to report to Provincial higher up. And where he is reporting higher up, it is where it is being compromised.”

Witness I states that planned operations often fail because information is leaked when reporting before execution, so their stance is to execute the operation and report only after arrest.

“planned operations... ultimately fail because it has been reported beforehand... That is why my stance mostly is that we execute the operation. Once arrest has been made, it is report then when we may have been successful.”

Witness I left Pretoria with Masoma to a scene in Aeroton and was going to verify information, not to execute an operation.

“when we left, it was not for execution. It was to check and verify. It was like it was information-checking... we arrived... it is the same quantity as Masoma received the message.”

Witness I asserts that although arriving to verify, a claim was made that the scene and drugs were known, and this assertion was without verification but based on what was told to Witness I.

“you speak only to Phakula. Then the next thing you say is, this is my scene... you have not verified that there is drugs... It is just black bags on the back of a van... You have not verified anything. So we are back at... you knew exactly what it was... That is why you were able to assert yourself and say this is my scene.”

Witness I did not inform their immediate superior, Colonel Seobe (acting Unit Commander), that they were following a lead and would report back later; instead, they told her they were going to Johannesburg High Court.

“Why did you not say to Colonel Seobe ... I am now following on a lead and I will come back to report to you once I know what is going on?”

Witness I states the utility of reporting to Commanding Officer before operations is so the officer can know the whereabouts of the member and account for them.

“So they could know whereabouts of the member... so they could account where the member is.”

Witness I acknowledges difficulties when officers go on operations or verification exercises without telling their Commanding Officers.

“Yes.”

Witness I's position was they would report to their superior once they knew everything that had happened and where they had been asked to go.

“I believe by that status my take was that I would report once I know everything what has happened, when I get where I have been asked to come.”

Witness I inconsistently stated they needed to verify the quantity of drugs on site despite earlier claiming to know the quantity before arrival and to believe it was part of their inquiry number.

“You said that you needed to verify because you then confirmed the quantity of the drugs once you were there ... This is different from what you said in your statement ... you knew the quantity before ...”

Witness I admits they should have told Colonel Seobe they were following a lead and would report back.

“I should have done that, Commissioner.”

Witness I states they were informed of the quantity but needed to confirm on arrival that what they were told was correct.

“No, I was informed of the quantity and I needed to confirm when I get there that what I was told is right, it is as it is.”

Witness I knew when arriving that DPCI members from Germiston and Johannesburg were at the scene but chose to first speak to Warrant Officer Phakula instead of DPCI members, despite Phakula being the person they should speak to per procedure.

“You saw them when you arrived that your colleagues are there ... so you knew ... but you went to Phakula ...”

Witness I did not speak to DPCI members from Germiston and Johannesburg upon arrival because they first needed a briefing to understand the situation before liaising with colleagues.

“The people who called me to the scene, I had to get a briefing first and after then I will relate with my other colleagues of Johannesburg and Germiston.”

Witness I deliberately misled their superior by telling them they were going to Johannesburg High Court when they instead were going to an operation scene to legitimize an unlawful operation and conceal their true purpose.

“You made a decision not to inform the Acting Unit Commander that you are going to Aeroton because ... you are hiding from her for wrong reasons ... you told her that you had gone to the High Court ... You arrive at the scene ... you do not speak to DPCI who have jurisdiction ... you speak to Phakula ... this conduct up to this point is calculated conduct ... to legitimise an unlawful operation ...”

Witness I refuses to comment on the accusation that their conduct to legitimize the unlawful operation was calculated.

“I will not comment, Commissioner.”

ADV Khumalo accuses Witness I of using the inquiry number to legitimise an unlawful operation by Maganean, Phakula, and Mashaba which was interrupted by SAPS members dispatched by 10111.

“Your presence there and your use of this 2020 inquiry number was to legitimise what was otherwise an unlawful operation ... to steal the drugs.”

ADV Khumalo says the unlawful operation was interrupted by Booysen's SAPS and other units including Flying Squad and Officer Rikhoitso, yet Witness I did not inform their superiors or speak to all officers on scene but only later spoke with Colonel J. C.

“When you arrived at the scene, you found DPCI who have jurisdictional control ... why did you not speak to them ... others including Booysens police, Flying Squad, Officer Rikhoitso ... you spoke with Colonel J C afterwards ... why did you not talk to all the other officers on scene?”

The witness was briefed only by Warrant Officer Phakula, not by Sergeant Magane or Chief Mashaba.

“I got a briefing from Phakula only. He is the one who was briefing me, Warrant Officer Phakula.”

The witness identified that the initial handling of evidence bags was improper and a statement would be required regarding why the bags were moved from the truck to the bakkie.

“I was going to request whoever moved them to make a statement to that effect on why was it moved from the truck to the bakkie.”

The crime scene was not cordoned off upon arrival, which was immediately apparent and concerning to the witness.

“The first is the scene was not cordoned off. At least that is the evidence that has been led. So you arrive, there are policemen at the scene and I guess Warrant Officer Phakula is in charge of the scene, but you see that the scene is not cordoned off.”

The witness needed a full briefing before acting to address issues observed at the scene, including the lack of cordon and improper handling of evidence bags.

“I needed to get full briefing before I could act on anything.”

The witness was informed there was a photographer involved and was awaiting confirmation if other key role players had been called to the scene, specifically mentioning FS L.

“The only thing I was informed was that a photographer has been phoned … And that is why I needed to know if other people had been called upon. That is why I was awaiting other … That contacting FS L.”

Witness acknowledged knowing it was wrong for the evidence to be moved in that manner and stated a statement regarding this was going to be needed later.

“No, I knew it was wrong. That is why I mentioned earlier that statement was going to be needed on reason why it was put in police bakkie.”

Unmarked bakkie from Zonkizizwe Police Station, driven by desk policeman Magane, was used to transport evidence bags that had fallen from the truck, which was considered suspicious and improper crime scene handling.

“They took those drugs that fell out of the truck, they took them and they put them in a bakkie, in an unmarked bakkie that belongs to Zonkizizwe Police Station driven by Magane who is not, who is a desk-bound person. At that point you did not see anything wrong with that?”

The witness concluded that the conduct of Warrant Officer Phakula in moving evidence bags from the truck to the bakkie indicated a lack of proper crime scene handling knowledge.

“Whoever told him they fell from a bakkie is the one I refer not knowing how to handle a crime scene.”

The witness stated that the actions of the Generals appeared to be an effort to protect the arrested driver and to obscure the origin of the vehicle and drugs, indicating suspicion of guilt against the driver.

“You say in paragraph 24 that you were concerned that the actions of the Generals appeared to be an effort to protect both the driver of the truck found with the drugs and to obscure the origin of the vehicle and its contents. Are you saying this because you were suspecting the driver to be guilty of an offence?”

The witness did not mention in their statement that Magane, Phakula, and Mashaba did wrong things at the scene not complying with prescribed procedures, although the witness now acknowledges they should have stated that.

“Maybe I should have stipulated, Commissioner, that also their conduct was improper by removing the bags. I did not state it in my statement. I should have stated it.”

The witness confirmed suspicion of the driver, based on experience that truck drivers often claim ignorance of the truck’s contents despite knowledge they are transporting illicit items.

“Yes. With experience, Commissioner, drivers of trucks, always they say they do not know anything of the contents of the truck they are driving, but whereas they are knowledgeable and they know what they are transporting …”

Some drivers in the rip-on-rip-off system are aware that the trucks they drive are transporting drugs despite pretending otherwise.

“they pretend as if they are not knowledgeable, whereas they are”

There exists at least one known incident in 2020 where a driver involved with the system knew the contents he was transporting.

“the container which was arrested in 2020, the drivers, they did know what the contents of what they had on the…”

Witness I states that he never spoke with General Khan the whole day and that the report by General Khan of interactions is false.

“I never spoke with him for the day”

Major General Khan's statement about his engagement with Witness I at the crime scene is a lie; Witness I denies that interaction happened.

“this never happened. It is a lie, paragraph 8, by the General”

Colonel Bok is the immediate superior of Witness I and was known to General Khan through Provincial Head Major General Kadwa and Brigadier Sekgobela.

“General Kadwa was there, he is my Provincial Head and Brigadier Sekgobela was also there, she is my Provincial Commander”

General Khan allegedly called Witness I at 11:55 to ask if he had reported to him and if there was a narcotic investigation, and stated he intended to arrest him for defeating the course of justice.

“he received a call from Major General Khan, asking if you had reported to him, and whether you had a narcotic investigation… he was going to arrest you for defeating the course of justice”

Witness I denies having any conversation with General Khan and says all people at the scene confirm no interaction occurred.

“I still maintain I never had a conversation with General Khan and all the people on the scene could confirm to that effect”

Major General Khan engaged key officers at a scene before handing over the investigation to Major General Kadwa, exercising caution and reasonableness, but this view is not shared by Witness I.

“then he decided that look, this needs further investigation and handed over the scene to Major General Kadwa. Now it appears to me that at least if regard is had to Major General Khan's version, he exercised more caution and reasonableness in that he engaged everyone at the scene before making a determination”

Witness I disputes that Major General Khan contacted him and spoke with him regarding the scene.

“The fact that he never contacted me and he alleged he spoke with me, that is what I do not agree with.”

Witness I states that General Kadwa's actions should have been conducted by him as a General of Crime Intelligence, implying Major General Khan should not have been on scene.

“From an investigative point of view, no, because he is a General of Crime Intelligence, all the things she did were supposed to be done by General Kadwa.”

General Khan came to the scene and took over, giving instructions, but as a Crime Intelligence General he was not supposed to be there.

“General Khan came to the scene and took over the scene and gave instructions. As a Crime Intelligence General, to start with, he was not supposed to be on scene.”

All arrests at the scene were made by Colonel Sebolano, who was then a Captain; Major General Khan did not arrest anyone but gave instructions aloud possibly to members of Organized Crime in Germiston and Johannesburg who took over the scene and effected arrests and collected exhibits.

“That the arrests were all made by Colonel Sebolano, who was then a Captain. So Major General Khan did not arrest anyone but he gave instructions. He was speaking aloud. I do not know to whom specifically he was instructing, maybe those members of Organized Crime in Germiston and Johannesburg. They took over the scene and they effected the arrests. They collected the exhibits. So they took over the scene and conducted all those things that you accuse General Khan of having done.”

Yellow Jersey Logistics transported a container to Scania in Aeroton; Mashaba and Magane introduced themselves as Crime Intelligence officers but are not Crime Intelligence members.

“The directors of the company Yellow Jersey Logistics, which is the company that was transporting this container to Scania in Aeroton, they say Mashaba and Magane introduced themselves as Crime Intelligence. Were you aware of that? No, I am not, Commissioner.... Mashaba is not from Crime Intelligence, he is a Traffic Officer from Sedibeng. And Magane is a CIMA analyst based in Zonkizizwe. He is not Crime Intelligence. Even if he was Crime Intelligence, he is not operational, he is desk-based. So he would have no business asking to open containers.”

Witness I accepts that the misrepresentation by Magane and Mashaba as Crime Intelligence officers makes their conduct suspicious.

“You accept that that alone is suspicious, makes their conduct suspicious? Yes, Commissioner.”

Witness I denied having learned from Sergeant Phakulatha that there was a discrepancy in the quantities of exhibits collected at the scene, which was later disproved by evidence presented to the Commission showing the actual bricks were more than initially recorded by 15 blocks.

“You indicate that you learned from Sergeant Phakulatha that the quantities of exhibits collected from the scene were different and instead the block of bricks were less by a hundred. Evidence has been presented to this Commission that that is untrue. And in fact, what happened was that there were more bricks that ultimately were reported to FSL than what was recorded on the scene and the difference was 15 blocks.”

Witness I agrees that indicting Generals Kadwa and Khan for acting above the law was unfair criticism after new evidence was presented.

“do you accept that the indictment that you launched on Generals Kadwa and Khan, whereby you say on the day in question it is evident that those individuals were acting above the law, that that is an unfair criticism on the two Generals? Yes, having learned what now is presented, yes, I agree, Commissioner.”

Major General Gerber did not investigate General Khan; his report focused solely on the conduct of DPCI officers, disproving Witness I's statement that Gerber concluded Generals Khan and Kadwa were doing their job.

“the Commission has received evidence that Major General Gerber was not investigating General Khan. That report looked into the conduct of just the DPCI officers. So that is also untrue.”

Witness I after new information no longer says that Generals Khan and Kadwa defeated the ends of justice, accepting there was no such defeating.

“So you no longer say they defeated the ends of justice? Yes.”

Witness I received a call or was informed by Captain Zungu that individuals wanted a meeting with him, and Mr Matlala did not play a direct role but the call came from Captain Zungu.

“you received a call, or at least you were informed by Captain Zungu that individuals would like to have a meeting with you. Mr Matlala did not play a direct role, instead you were called by Captain Zungu.”

The witness denies having any direct contact or relationship with Mr Matlala and states that Captain Zungu was the one who informed him about the meeting facilitated by Mr Matlala.

“No I would say it is a lie because I never spoke with Mr Matlala, I only spoke with Captain Zungu for the day, even my reason going there.”

Captain Zungu told the witness that the meeting was facilitated or arranged by Mr Matlala, which the witness accepted in his statement.

“Yes ... it is in relation to me being a witness on General Khan's matter, it entails General Khan ... Yes.”

The witness was arranged by Captain Zungu to live in Matlala's family house for about two years.

“Yes.”

According to Mr Mogotsi's evidence, the discussion about needing cash was in relation to the witness's meeting to assist, and Mr Matlala arranged to give the cash through Khan if the information was worth it.

“"I think he needs cash." And ... Dlamini says: "Okay, arrange with Khan to give him cash if the information he has is worth it."”

The witness alleges the transcripts of the recordings have been contaminated and do not reflect the true events; denies receiving any cash payment related to the meeting or case.

“I never received any cash. I was awaiting the CI guy and Brown to contact me to bring the bag as they promised so I could arrest them, but the facts of those, they do not reflect here. That is why I say the recording was contaminated, only what is displayed it is what benefits them.”

The witness denies receiving any cash payment in relation to General Khan's case despite transcripts suggesting otherwise, asserting that recordings have been tampered to favor others.

“No. Commissioner, earlier on you remember I mention the fact that the transcripts of the recording have been contaminated ... I never received any cash.”

Witness I acknowledges that Mr Mogotsi may have misled the people doing the application and that it was not truly the facts that really happened.

“Brown Mogotsi may be misled the people who were doing the application because it is not truly the facts which really happened”

Witness I admits that two women attempted to entice them to change their testimony in a disciplinary hearing to assist Major General Khan in winning the case.

“the two women came to you to entice you to change your testimony”

After the meeting where the attempt to bribe was made, a proper inquiry was registered to entrap Witness I, suggesting an effort to undertake a legitimate operation.

“a proper enquiry is then registered to entrap you and that suggests that they were trying to undertake a legitimate operation”

There was a plot against General Khan involving efforts to stop the disciplinary hearing by writing to the Minister.

“it landed writing to the Minister in order to stop the hearing from happening and there you will indicate to the Minister that there was a plot against General Khan”

Witness I contends that some things are missing from the transcript and insists the recording has been contaminated or manipulated and selectively edited.

“I believe the recording has been contaminated or manipulated to look as it is because it is not fully, everything else is indicated there. It seems like there is a selective things which have been put here”

Witness I did not take any action after the attempt to bribe, nor register any enquiry.

“you do not do anything, nor do you register an enquiry”

Witness I acknowledges that no supporting affidavit or corroborating documents have been filed to support their version of events and says this is because it was never asked for.

“there is no affidavit or anything that he has filed to corroborate your version”

Witness I explains that verbal authorizations for operations were routinely given over the phone and paperwork followed afterward.

“I did get authorization verbally. Telephonically I explained everything. They say once the operation is completed, do paperwork. It has happened”

Witness I intended to initiate a telephonic request for authorization after a meeting that was agreed upon but which never happened because the other party never came back to them.

“I was going to initiate that telephonic request for authorization and once received, I execute it ... But they never came back to me”

Advocate Khumalo references evidence led by Advocate Chaskalson supporting Brown Mogotsi’s statements.

“Advocate Chaskalson was leading the evidence of Brown Mogotsi”

Witness I disputes the improbability of their version of events asserted by counsel and insists their account is accurate despite lack of external supporting evidence.

“I will dispute that to the Commissioner. I will dispute that”

In December 2024, Matala referred Brown Mogotsi to a high-ranking police officer known to Witness I, who subsequently met with him, and the officer shared information about an intention to graft a negative finding in respect of the disciplinary hearing against Major General Khan.

“In December 2024, Matala referred me to a high-ranking police officer and I subsequently met him. I knew him as I had conducted an operation with him in the past. He shared information with me of the intention to graft a negative finding in respect of the disciplinary hearing against Major General Khan.”

Witness I does not dispute that Brown Mogotsi said it was Matala who referred him to Witness I and that he subsequently met Witness I.

“No .”

Brown Mogotsi stated that Witness I wanted money relating to a bag, possibly implying cash but did not explicitly say a bag of cash.

“He spoke about something. He said yes, he was talking about a bag. Maybe he implied cash, but he never said a bag of cash.”

Brown Mogotsi said he had to go back to Matala because the person Matala had referred him to was asking for cash, and that Witness I was asking for cash, which led to the discussion about Major General Khan.

“the person Matala had referred him to was asking for cash. Therefore, he needed to go back to Matala to tell him that you were asking for cash. And that is how it came about that discussion about Khan.”

Witness I denies that Witness I was asking for cash and suggests instead that Brown Mogotsi wanted cash himself, alleging that what was asked was to change the statement to facilitate a promotion and a bag (possibly metaphorical). Witness I says Mogotsi put him in a bad light intentionally.

“I will dispute that. Maybe Mr Mogotsi wanted cash himself, because me, what was asked was that I change the statement, they will facilitate I get a promotion and a bag. Maybe Mr Mogotsi, when he related to other people, he puts me in a picture which he is the one who is doing that, because...”

Witness I asserts that in a meeting it was Brown Mogotsi and another CI guy who offered him a bag and a promotional post.

“On the meeting, it is him and the CI guy who offered me a bag and a promotional post.”

Chief Mashaba applied to testify partially in camera, remotely, and not to have his face shown due to medical unfitness and to avoid giving an impression of running away from the proceedings.

“The reason ... I am not well. Medically, I am unfit. ... I have seen it necessary that I physically come so that it must not give the Commission an impression that maybe I am running away or something like that. ... I am struggling to also walk properly. Maybe that is the reason why I said I cannot. I am also coughing.”

Advocate Pooe opposes Chief Mashaba's application to testify partially in camera due to the medical note not covering the current period, lateness of application, and availability of accommodations for witnesses with health issues.

“The first is, as Chair has noted, the sick note does not cover the current period and so as matters stand, we do not have anything from Chief's doctor asserting that he is unwell, except hissay-so. The second is that the application itself is quite belated. ... The Commission, when approached by witnesses who have health reasons and need reasonable accommodations so that they are able to testify, we have... done so, including having intermittent breaks for witnesses to be able to take medications or indicate if they are uncomfortable and I see no reason why the same approach should not be adopted with Chief Mashaba.”

Chief Mashaba reiterates that although his application to testify remotely is late, he can still come physically if the Commission sees fit, and does not want to be seen as delaying or running away from the proceedings.

“Well, it was explained to me, Chair, that my application is late, but I still reiterate that if the Commission sees it fit, I can still come, because I do not want to be seen as I want to maybe delay or I am running away from the proceeding.”

The Commission refuses an application for witness testimony in closed session because the medical certificate suggests the witness is fit to testify in open session beyond 5 June 2026.

“your medical certificate says that you are in a condition to, I think it uses the what, the word, the term work? Beyond the 5th of June 2026 ... we will refuse the application”

Chief Samuel Tsiane Mashaba joined Gauteng Traffic as a trainee in 2003, was seconded to the Premier's Office as Acting Supervisor in 2006, promoted to Chief Provincial Inspector in 2013, politically and forcefully removed in 2018, was arrested and detained at Johannesburg Central with three colleagues, was suspended, reinstated and transferred, then appointed Acting Deputy Director in 2020 at Sedibeng District, Southern Corridor.

“I, Samuel Tsiane Mashaba, state ... I am an adult male Traffic Officer. I joined Gauteng Traffic office in 2003 ... In 2006, I was then seconded to Premier's Office as a Supervisor...In 2013, I was then promoted to a Chief Provincial Inspector post at the Premier's office ... In 2018, I was politically and forcefully removed. I was even arrested and detained at Johannesburg Central... I was then suspended. Upon my reinstatement, I was transferred to Vereeniging regional office ... In 2020, I was appointed as the Acting Deputy Director, Sedibeng district”

Chief Mashaba was appointed Chief in 2013, was Acting Deputy Director in 2020, but did not get a permanent appointment as Deputy Director, and was demoted.

“I am still the Chief, appointed 2013. In 2020, I was appointed as the Acting ... this is the next level after the Chief ...”

Chief Mashaba received a tip-off on 8 July 2021 about a truck traveling from Durban to Johannesburg allegedly carrying drugs, then confirmed and acted on the information on the following day (9 July 2021).

“Aeroton Drug Bust. On Thursday, the 8th July 2021, I received a tip-off from Mr Tumelo Nkuo of a truck travelling from Durban to Johannesburg, which was allegedly suspected to have drugs in its cargo ... On the following morning, February the 9th July 2021 ...”

Chief Mashaba met Mr Nku who confirmed the positive information about drugs involving senior law enforcement officials, warning to be careful who to involve.

“At about 5 o'clock a.m., I received a call from Mr Nku who confirmed that the information was positive and that I should come meet him at a certain place in Alberton ... I need to emphasize this ... the information I got was that I need to be careful who to involve because it involves senior law enforcement officials ... So I met Mr Nku and he gave me a briefing on his information.”

Chief Mashaba sought assistance to conduct a search on the truck suspected of carrying drugs but initially did not get help from Warrant Officers Phokungwane and Magane or Lebo from PIU, Gauteng. Magane later became available and assisted.

“I needed backup to conduct such a process ... I contacted Warrant Officer Phokungwane ... he was not available ... He also could not refer me to anyone else on duty at Alberton SAPS ... However, he gave me Warrant Officer Magane's contact number ... I phoned Warrant Officer Magane for assistance ... he told me he could not assist at that moment ... I then phoned Lebo from PIU, Gauteng ... who told me he does not have a motorcar and could not assist as well ... I phoned Warrant Officer Magane again ... fortunately, he was now available and he agreed to come to assist.”

Warrant Officer Magane arrived within 30 minutes to assist Chief Mashaba and Mr Nku, drove a Nissan NP300 bakkie, after which they went to Yellow Jersey Logistics premises to conduct a search on the truck.

“He arrived where I was with Mr Nku ... He was driving his official vehicle, a Nissan NP300 bakkie ... after briefing him ... Mr Nku narrated the information again ... He then decided we would go to the premises of Yellow Jersey Logistics where the truck was allegedly parked ... We approached the premises and asked for a Depot Manager ... We informed him that we wanted to conduct a search on one of the trucks in the premises ... He agreed and confirmed the truck in question was still in the premises ...”

Police officers escorted a truck to Scania's office in Aeroton for search with representatives including Warrant Officer Magane and Mr Nku.

“We were then accompanied or escorted by Yellow Jersey Logistics security to Scania's office in Aeroton. As such, it was me, Warrant Officer Magane in the black Nissan bakkie belonging to the state, Mr Nku's BMW, as well as the Yellow Jersey escort bakkie that went with the truck to Scania at Aeroton.”

Hardus expressed concern about allowing police to break seals at Yellow Jersey Logistics as the customer might have an issue with it.

“Hardus told us that he would have a problem allowing us to break the seals at Yellow Jersey Logistics as the customer might have an issue with that.”

Upon opening the container at Scania in Aeroton, police found black bags containing drugs and started a search to secure and count evidence.

“When the container opened, black bags started falling down. At that point, we realized that the tip-off was indeed correct. There were drugs in those bags.”

Police placed a driver named Vusi Mthembu and a manager named Jolene under arrest for possession of drugs found in the truck container.

“I then informed both Jolene and the driver, Vusi Mthembu, that I was placing them under arrest for possession of drugs.”

Police contacted Warrant Officer Phakula from the National Investigative Unit to assist with processing the crime scene.

“I was informed by Warrant Officer Magane that he contacted Warrant Officer Phakula from National Investigative Unit to come help process the scene.”

Private security and Booysen SAPS arrived at the scene and reported a complaint about bogus cops but accepted identities upon verification.

“Privatesecurity and Booysens SAPS then came into where we were parked. The SAPS members found me standing with Warrant Officer Magane outside waiting for Warrant Officer Phakula. They informed us that they got a complaint about bogus cops members. We then introduced ourselves to the two police officers, and they were satisfied with our identities.”

Upon arrival, General Khan assumed control without briefing the arresting officers and behaved authoritatively at the drug confiscation scene.

“When General Khan arrived, he stopped them. Everything got out of hand. He did not ask for a briefing from us and simply did not want to listen to us. He went to other persons instead and got the version which he entertained. He was behaving like a man with all the powers and took charge of the scene.”

General Khan instructed Warrant Officer Magane to sit in his bakkie and later searched the speaker's car and confiscated their service firearm.

“General Khan instructed Warrant Officer Magane to sit in his bakkie. That is where the altercation began when I confronted him and asked why is he instructing Makhani to sit in his car, which looks like an arrest. General Khan also took me to where my car was parked. He then took my cellphone, searched my car for drugs, but there was nothing. He then took my service firearm and put it in the exhibit bag.”

General Khan called Chief Director Advocate Thami Mayisela and Deputy Director Mandla Sikhonyane to discuss speaker's employment status and insisted speaker be locked up despite boss's defense.

“He then called two TRT SAPS members to guard me and I must stay next to my car, meaning I was removed from the scene and told he wants to talk to my boss, Chief Director Advocate Thami Mayisela. He then called Deputy Director Mandla Sikhonyane and asked if he knows me. The phone was on speaker, Mandla then agreed he knows me. Then General Khan asked to talk to my boss, Chief Director Advocate Thami Mayisela. Then fortunately my boss and Mandla Sikhonyane were together and Mandla gave the Chief Director Advocate Thami Mayisela the phone still on loudspeaker. He enquired whether I am still employed, suspended or fired at the department. My boss confirmed that I am still an employee and asked Khan what is the problem. Khan responded that he found me on the scene of drugs in Aeroton. My boss said he does not care what I did, I must just be locked up.”

The speaker and others were arrested by a DPCI Hawks team led by Brigadier Sekgobela and other senior officers, detained harshly in Booysen until July 12, 2021, and denied visits and necessities per instructions from General Kadwa.

“At around half past 1, 13:30, we were arrested by DPCI Hawks team that came last at the crime scene. These were Brigadier Sekgobela, Colonel Steyn, Colonel Maluleka, Captain Sebola, Captain Nortje. They arrested us and took charge of the scene... After the arrest, we were taken to Booysen Police Station for detention and was detained at around 19:30 until Monday the 12th July 2021... We were treated very bad during detention in the cells and we were told as per General Kadwa's instructions that we are not allowed to be visited, where the toilet was not even working and nothing was allowed from our families outside, food, toiletries and water.”

General Kadwa and Brigadier Sekgobela threatened prosecutors and a lawyer to enroll a matter which was initially refused to be placed on the roll.

“General Kadwa and Brigadier Sekgobela came to court and threatened them, the prosecutors and the lawyer, to enrol the matter”

Captain Sebola said they had been arrested for possession of allegedly 700 kg of cocaine.

“Captain Sebola said we had been arrested for possession of allegedly 700 kg of drugs, Cocaine”

Captain Sebola could not answer or rebut questions about arrest circumstances raised by the Magistrate, including whether drugs were weighed and the method used, suggesting that the arrest was rushed or made prematurely.

“Captain Sebola could not answer or rebut the suggestion”

The speaker was suspended on 0 July 2021 but does not know the current status of their departmental case.

“my Supervisor, Director Pompi, served me with a letter of notice to suspend dated 0 July 2021 ... I do not know what is happening with my departmental case”

Chief Mashaba confirms that he was suspended following the letter of suspension and subsequently went back to work without a disciplinary process being followed.

“I was suspended ... Yes ... The disciplinary process was not followed ... Then you went back to work? Yes”

The suspension expired after 90 days and then the suspended officer had to go back to work as it is usually a three-month period.

“The period of suspension expired and because it had expired you had to go back to work ... It is usually three months, right? ... Yes, 90 days”

Cases Booysen CAS 252/10/2021 and Booysen CAS 52/10/2021 arose from the arrest and detention by General Khan, General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela, Captain Sebola, Captain Nortje, Colonel Steyn, and the Gauteng DPCI team.

“Booysen CAS 252/10/2021 ... Booysen CAS 52/10/2021 case emanates from our arrest and detention by General Khan, Crime Intelligence, General Kadwa, Brigadier Sekgobela, Captain Sebola, Captain Nortje, Colonel Steyn, and the Gauteng DPCI team”

The IPID recommended that all members involved in the arrest must be charged departmentally, but only General Khan was charged and was found not guilty, and an impression was created that he was being victimized.

“IPID then recommended that all members involved in our arrest must be charged departmentally. However, General Khan was charged ... General Khan was not found guilty ... An impression was created that he was being victimized”

Major General Kadwa and his DPCI team were not charged, and during General Khan's hearing DPCI issued a report clearing all members.

“Major General Kadwa of the DPCI and his team were not charged ... During General Khan's hearing, the DPCI issued a report that all their members are cleared”

There were media reports that witnesses in General Khan's hearing were facing immediate re-enrolment of their case, but the speaker's case has not been re-enrolled.

“Media reports that witnesses in General Khan's hearing ... were facing an immediate re-enrolment of their case ... Our case has not been re-enrolled as reported”

The Booysen CAS 8/07/2021 case was provisionally withdrawn on 12 October 2022 and finally withdrawn by Advocate De Kock from NDPP in January 2024.

“Our Booysen CAS 8/07/2021 was provisionally withdrawn on 12 October 2022 and finally withdrawn by Advocate De Kock from NDPP in January 2024”

The speaker lodged a grievance of unfair treatment, harassment and victimization on 3 November 2025, but it was ignored and unresolved.

“I lodged a grievance of unfair treatment, harassment and victimization with our labour section ... it was ignored and remained unresolved”

In December 2025, the speaker was moved to Head of the Special Law Enforcement Unit (SLEU), an undercover unit dealing with high-priority crimes, internal affairs, anti-fraud and corruption in the province.

“In 2025, December, I was then moved to head office as the Head of SLEU, Special Law Enforcement Unit ... dealing with high-priority crimes, internal affairs and anti-fraud and corruption”