Top cops’ court brawl

IN­JUNC­TION: IPID HEAD SEEKS COURT RUL­ING TO HALT IN­VES­TI­GA­TION

The Citizen (Gauteng) - - FRONT PAGE - Amanda Wat­son aman­daw@cit­i­zen.co.za

Mem­bers of the po­lice cur­rently un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion by of­fi­cers of the In­de­pen­dent Po­lice In­ves­tiga­tive Direc­torate have been asked to probe their in­ves­ti­ga­tors, claims Ipid head Robert McBride in court doc­u­ments.

Top cops named in bizarre merry-gor­ound over ar­rests of O’Sul­li­van and Trent.

Mem­bers of the po­lice cur­rently un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion by the In­de­pen­dent Po­lice In­ves­tiga­tive Direc­torate (Ipid) have been tasked to in­ves­ti­gate their in­ves­ti­ga­tors.

This is the star­tling claim made by Ipid head Robert McBride in court doc­u­ments filed in the High Court in Pre­to­ria yes­ter­day.

McBride is seek­ing a court in­junc­tion to pre­vent the in­ves­ti­ga­tors be­ing in­ves­ti­gated by their sub­jects.

He’s named Ma­jor-Gen­eral Ntebo Jan Mab­ula, Brigadier Daniel Pha­rasa Ncube, Lieu­tenant-Colonel Is­mail Da­wood, Brigadier Cli­ford Matome Kgo­rane, Colonel SM Reddy and Lieu­tenant-Gen­eral Kho­motso Pha­lane as re­spon­dents.

Ex­cept for Phahlane, all the oth­ers oc­cupy se­nior po­si­tions in the North West prov­ince and are un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion for their in­volve­ment in foren­sic con­sul­tant Paul O’Sul­li­van and Sarah Jane Trent’s ar­rests.

The Cit­i­zen has also seen a mem­o­ran­dum to act­ing di­rec­tor of pub­lic pros­e­cu­tions ad­vo­cate Ge­orge Baloyi, dated May 31, 2017 and signed off by deputy di­rec­tors of pub­lic pros­e­cu­tions FW van der Merwe and HE van Jaarsveld.

They found in the ar­rests of O’Sul­li­van and Trent there were prima fa­cie grounds for con­tempt of court, kid­nap­ping, fraud, intimidation, theft of a cell­phone and de­feat­ing the ends of jus­tice cases against Ncube and Da­wood.

“I have to make it clear that in my view a fail­ure to pros­e­cute will be an in­jus­tice to the com­plainants and the pub­lic at large,” the memo stated.

“If it is de­cided not to pro­ceed with prose­cu­tion for what­ever rea­son, care should be taken that the de­ci­sion will with­stand the re­quire­ments for a nolle pros­e­qui [de­cline to pros­e­cute] cer­tifi­cate. The pos­si­ble delict­ual li­a­bil­ity of the NPA should also be taken into ac­count,” the memo con­cluded.

The Na­tional Pros­e­cut­ing Au­thor­ity did not re­spond to a re­quest for com­ment as to why no ac­tion had been taken, nearly six months later.

Van der Merwe and Van Jaarsveld had ques­tions about O’Sul­li­van’s ar­rest in spite of a court or­der pre­vent­ing this.

They asked on what ev­i­dence the war­rant of ar­rest for O’Sul­li­van was is­sued, whether the per­son who signed it on be­half of the di­rec­tor of pub­lic pros­e­cu­tions had in­for­ma­tion per­tain­ing to the war­rant, and pointed out it was un­clear who had signed the war­rant.

How­ever, ac­cord­ing to a tape record­ing, said state ad­vo­cates, it was an ad­vo­cate Mashuga who had signed off on the war­rant and they rec­om­mended a state­ment be taken from him.

McBride wants the ap­pli­ca­tion for the in­ter­dict to start on Novem­ber 28. –

A fail­ure to pros­e­cute will be an in­jus­tice.

The In­de­pen­dent Po­lice In­ves­tiga­tive Di­rec­tive (Ipid) has asked Na­tional Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (NDPP) Shaun Abra­hams to re­view his de­ci­sion not to pros­e­cute for­mer Act­ing Na­tional Po­lice Com­mis­sioner Lieu­tenant-Gen­eral Kgo­motso Phahlane, pic­tured, on a charge of de­feat­ing the ends of jus­tice.

Last week, the Na­tional Pros­e­cut­ing Au­thor­ity (NPA) an­nounced its de­ci­sion not to pros­e­cute on the charge, cit­ing the un­like­li­hood of a suc­cess­ful prose­cu­tion.

But Ipid told par­lia­ment last week it felt it had a strong case against the sus­pended top cop.

Re­spond­ing to ques­tions re­gard­ing the NPA’s de­ci­sion, Ipid head Robert McBride also added that not only had the Saps been raid­ing Ipid of­fices in Gaut­eng, but that this had in­creased af­ter Ipid went af­ter the Phahlane case.

He said while Phahlane was “em­ploy­ing de­lay­ing tac­tics”, Ipid was close to fi­nal­is­ing the case.

The an­nounce­ment came af­ter a leaked doc­u­ment from Ipid re­vealed new al­le­ga­tions of money laun­der­ing in the po­lice watch­dog’s on­go­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion into Phahlane’s al­leged cor­rupt re­la­tion­ships with Saps sup­pli­ers.

The doc­u­ment, a let­ter ad­dressed to act­ing na­tional po­lice com­mis­sioner Lieu­tenant-Gen­eral Le­setja Moth­iba, al­leged that in ad­di­tion to the two Saps sup­pli­ers Phahlane was sup­pos­edly ac­cept­ing kick­backs from, a third sup­plier had been named.

It was al­leged that while Jolanta Ko­mod­olow­icz, owner of the com­pany Krim­i­nal­is­tik, al­legedly paid for an R80 000 sound sys­tem for the cop, and car dealer Du­rand Sny­man spon­sored cars to Phahlane, Keith Keat­ing, owner of Foren­sic Data An­a­lyt­ics, was in­volved in trans­ac­tions with Du­rant for the ben­e­fit of Phahlane, in­clud­ing more than R1 mil­lion sent to a Namib­ian bank ac­count be­long­ing to Sny­man.

While all par­ties have de­nied the al­le­ga­tions, Ipid spokesper­son Moses Dlamini told The Cit­i­zen their in­ves­ti­ga­tors had turned their fo­cus on Keat­ing.

“The case against Lieu­tenant-Gen­eral Phahlane is strong and the in­ves­ti­ga­tion is now fo­cus­ing on a cor­rupt re­la­tion­ship be­tween Phahlane and Keat­ing,” he said.

NPA spokesper­son ad­vo­cate Lu­vuyo Mfaka yes­ter­day con­firmed that Abra­hams is busy re­view­ing the de­ci­sion not to in­sti­tute a prose­cu­tion in the mat­ter.

Pic­ture: Michel Bega

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.