Count 21:      CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 120(1)(a), READ WITH SECTION 6(1)(b) OF THE FIREARMS CONTROL ACT, , AND REGULATIONS 1(xix) AND 13(4)(a) OF THE FIREARMS CONTROL REGULATIONS, 2004  (GN R345 IN GG 26156 OF 26.03.2004, AS AMENDED)

A person other than the relevant Designated Firearms Officer receiving, completing and submitting an application for a license to possess a firearm

[ACCUSED 6]

Count 22:      CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 90(a) READ WITH SECTIONS 120(1)(a), AND 121 OF THE FIREARMS CONTROL ACT,

Possession of ammunition without a license

[ACCUSED 1]

Count 23:      CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 120(9)(e) READ WITH SECTIONS 120(1)(a), 117 AND 121 OF THE FIREARMS CONTROL ACT,

Count 24:      CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 91(1) READ WITH SECTIONS 120(1)(b), 117 AND 121 OF THE FIREARMS CONTROL ACT,

Possession of more than 200 cartridges for a licensed firearm

[ACCUSED 1]

Count 25:      DEFEATING OR OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

[ACCUSED 1; 2; 3]

Count 26:      FRAUD

[ACCUSED 1]

Count 27:      DEFEATING OR OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

[ACCUSED 1 AND 5]

Counts 28 – 109:   MONEY LAUNDERING

In contravention of section 4(a) and/or (b), read with sections 1, 4(i), 4(ii) and 8 of the POCA

[ACCUSED 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7]

2. During the course of the presentation of the State’s case, a trial within a trial was held to determine, inter alia, the fairness of the trial with specific reference to whether the surveillance of the accused by the SAPS was lawful.

3. Before the conclusion of the trial within a trial, accused 1 through to 6 decided to change their pleas on certain counts from not guilty to guilty and to make certain admissions in terms of section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.

4. The State chose to accept the pleas in terms of section 112(2) and the court, after having already considered the evidence led to date when it was presented with the change of pleas, accepted the pleas and convicted the relevant accused on their pleas.

5. The State and defence brought an application to separate accused 7, who had not changed her plea, from the remaining accused but the court refused the application on the grounds that no actual prejudice to accused 7 was found to exist.

6. The State and the defence brought an application for the acquittal of accused 7 on all counts that she had been charged with and an acquittal of accused 1 through to 6 on all counts that they had not pleaded guilty to.

7. The court considered the application for acquittal.

8. This judgment contains the reasons for the conviction of the relevant accused on the counts to which they pleaded guilty as well as the reasons for the acquittal of the relevant accused on the counts for which they sought acquittals.

Law Applicable to cases in which a plea is changed after evidence has been adduced

9. In S v Brown 2015 (1) SACR 211  (SCA) at [94] the Supreme Court of Appeal held as follows:

“Change of plea during a trial

[94] More than 25 years ago in S v Mokhobo 1989 (1) SA 939 (A), this court had occasion to consider s 112 of the Act, in relation to it being applied both at the commencement of proceedings, as well as after the state has led evidence and an accused has then elected to change his plea from not guilty to guilty. At 943D – E the following appears:

'Artikel 112 vind normaalweg toepassing wanneer 'n beskuldigde by die aanvang van 'n verhoor skuldig pleit. Daar is egter niks in die artikel wat spreek teen 'n aanwending van die bepalings daarvan indien 'n beskuldigde wat aanvanklik onskuldig gepleit het sy pleit wens te verander nadat die Staat getuienis begin lei het nie — mits, natuurlik, die aanklaer bereid is om op daardie stadium 'n pleit van skuldig te aanvaar. Dit mag dan egter nie nodig wees om die beskuldigde te ondervra, of vir hom om in sy verklaring erkennings te maak, aangaande elemente van die misdaad wat reeds deur getuienis bewys is nie.'

10. The court in S v Sethoga & Others 1990(1) SA 270 (A) at 275 C-E, found that a court has the duty to determine the issues raised by the accused’s initial plea of not guilty.

“The prosecutor cannot interfere with the exercise of that duty and compel the Court”

11. In  Brown’s case the Supreme Court of Appeal held as follows at [102]:

“Having regard to the authorities referred to above, Veldhuizen J was obliged, when the plea was tendered, to consider whether the plea ought to be accepted, with particular regard being paid to the effect of the evidence led up until that stage.”

12. At para 103, the court in Brown found that:

“In deciding on an appropriate sentence, the court below ought not to have restricted itself to bare facts contained in the plea. The tendered plea does not provide enough context nor does it present enough of a picture for the court to properly fulfil its sentencing function…. no regard can be had to evidence inconsistent with the plea.”

13. In conformity with the view expressed in the paragraph above, the relevant evidence is summarised and evaluated for the purpose of taking account of the context it provides and to demonstrate why the court accepts the pleas of guilty, where applicable and how the court arrives at its decision concerning the remaining charges on which pleas of not guilty have been entered.

Summary of evidence led

14. Warrant Officer Wynand Wessels, the forensic investigator’s relevant testimony is as follows:

Concerning accused 4:

14.1.       A cheque of R20 000 drawn on the account of accused 1 made payable to accused 4 was eventually deposited into an African Bank account of accused 4 by way of internal bank credit transfer on 3 December 2011;

14.2.          A further cheque of R7000 drawn on accused 1’s bank account made payable to accused 4 was deposited into accused 4’s ABSA bank account on 7 February 2012;

14.3.       From 27/4/2012 to 1/5/2012, accused 4 lived at Soeteweide Guest House and he incurred costs of R3180 which was paid by accused 2;

14.4.       On 12 December 2012, a cash  cheque drawn on the bank account of accused 2 for R15 000,00 was deposited into a Standard Bank account of accused 4;

14.5.       R2000 cash was deposited into the bank account of accused 4 with the reference” Mr Dawjee” on 5 January 2013;

14.6.       On 12 July 2013  a Mercedes Benz was rented by Accused 4’s daughter, Dominique, for R10 149,30 from Cabs Car Hire and the amount was charged to the account of accused 2;

14.7.       On 19 August 2013, a cash cheque of R10 000,00 drawn on the bank account of accused 1, was deposited into a Standard Bank account of accused 4.;

14.8.       On 3 September 2013, an amount of R4000,00 was paid on the Truworths account of accused 4 which was from the First National Bank credit card of accused 1;

14.9.       On 3 September 2013, an amount of R4195,00 was paid on the Markhams account of accused 4 from the First National Bank credit card of accused 1;

14.10.    The total amount of financial benefit allegedly received by accused 4 from either accused 1 or from one of the business entities controlled by accused 1 is R75 524,30;

14.11.    Of the amount of R75 524,30 mentioned above, R54 000,00 were cash payments/cheque deposits;

Concerning accused 5:

14.12      Accused 5 declared in a financial disclosures form, a golf sponsorship by accused 2 to the value of R4000,00 ;

14.13      On 11 May 2013, petrol in the amount of R697,10, was filled into a motor vehicle owned by accused 5 and debited to the account of accused 2 held at the petrol station;

14.14      On 16 June 2013, petrol in the amount of R704,25, was filled into a motor vehicle owned by accused 5 and debited to the account of accused 2 held at the petrol station;

14.15      On 22 June  2013, petrol in the amount of R673,00, was filled into a motor vehicle owned by accused 5 and debited to the account of accused 2 held at the petrol station;

14.16      On 6 July 2013, petrol in the amount of R478,65, was filled into a motor vehicle owned by accused 5 and debited to the account of accused 2 held at the petrol station;

14.17      On 15 July  2013, petrol in the amount of R771,60, was filled into a motor vehicle owned by accused 5 and debited to the account of accused 2 held at the petrol station;

14.18      The total value of the alleged benefit to accused 5 as outlined above, is R7324,60 of which R4000,00 is a declared golf sponsorship and R3324.60 is for petrol;

Concerning Accused 6

14.19      On 28 February 2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a cost of R3643,73, which was charged to the account of accused 2;

14.20      On 27 July 2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a cost of R1352,15, which was charged to the account of accused 2;

14.21      On 13 August 2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a cost of R1493,04, which was charged to the account of accused 2;

14.22      On 7 September 2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a cost of R1352,20, which was charged to the account of accused 2;

14.23      On 18 September 2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6  at a cost of R2004,10, which was charged to the account of accused 2;

14.24      On 3 December 2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a cost of R3754,25, which was charged to the account of accused 2;

14.25      On 4 April 2013, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a cost of R955,50 which was charged to the account of accused 2;

14.26      On 25 June 2013, petrol in the amount of R 516,85, was filled into a vehicle owned by accused 6 and debited to the account of accused 2 held at a petrol station;

14.27      On 4 July 2013, a Renault Clio motor vehicle, valued at R167400,20, was registered in the name of accused 2 but it bore the registration number “ KIRSH WP” and it was used by Kirshia Govender, the daughter of accused 6 and 7;

14.28      On 24 August 2013, Mango Flight tickets valued at R2218,00 for Kirshia Govender was paid from the First National Bank credit card account of accused 1;

14.29      On 4 October 2013, petrol in the amount of R 468,05, was filled into the Renault Clio and debited to the account of accused 2 held at a petrol station;

14.30      On 10 October 2013, a Mango flight ticket valued at R1325,00 for accused 6 was paid from the First National Bank credit card account of accused 1;

14.31      A Toyota Tazz motor vehicle’s registration was transferred from the name of Kirshia to the name of accused 2 on 5 July 2013;

14.32      Over the period  21 November 2011 to March 2013, accused 1 paid for maintenance of the pool at the home of accused 6 and 7 in a total amount of R5777,00;

14.33      The total value of the benefit to accused 6 is calculated at R192,260,00;

14.34      The benefits received by accused 6 and 7’s daughter and the pool maintenance at the joint home of accused 6 and 7 were apportioned equally between accused 6 and 7;

Concerning accused 7:

14.35      On 24 February 2012 a cash deposit of R3000 was made into her Nedbank account with a reference bearing accused 1’s name.

14.36      On 7 June 2012 a cash deposit of R5000 was made into accused 7’s bank account bearing a reference with accused 1’s name.

14.37      On 30 November 2012 a cash deposit of R3000 was made into the bank account of accused 7 bearing a reference of accused 1’s name.

14.38      On 2 January 2013 a BMW 3 series car with a contract value of R490 919,00 was registered in the name of accused 7 with accused 1 signing as surety and co-principal debtor. Accused 1 also arranged for the payments for the vehicle to be deducted by debit order from his bank account.

14.39      On 14 March 2013 a cash cheque to the value of R10 000 drawn on a bank account of accused 1 was cashed by accused 7.

14.40      On 22 March 2013 a BMW 5 series vehicle with a contract value of R669 001,66 was bought on the name of accused 7 with accused 1 signing as surety and co-principal debtor and authorising the payments for the vehicle to be deducted by debit order from his bank account.

14.41      On 14 April 2013 a motor vehicle to the value of R955,50 was hired by P Govender, the son of accused 6 and 7 and the amount for the hire was charged to the account of accused 2.

14.42      On 25 May 2013 petrol to the value of R760,25 was put into a vehicle owned by accused 7 at a petrol station and it was charged to the account of accused 2.

14.43      On 14 June 2013 petrol to the value of R672,35 was put into a vehicle owned by accused 7 at a petrol station and it was charged to the account of accused 2.

14.44      On 25 June 2013 petrol to the value of R725,00 was put into a vehicle owned by accused 7 at a petrol station and it was charged to the account of accused 2.

14.45      On 25 June 2013 petrol to the value of R516,85 petrol was put into a vehicle owned by accused 7 at a petrol station and it was charged to the account of accused 2.

14.46      On 4 July 2013 a Renault Clio to the value of R 167 400, 20 used by accused 6 and 7’s daughter was used registered in the name of accused 2.

14.47      On 24 August 2013 Mango flights for accused 6 and 7’s daughter to the value of R2218,00 was paid from accused 1’s credit card account.

14.48      On 29 September 2013 petrol to the value of R300,00 was put into a vehicle owned by accused 7 at a petrol station and it was charged to the account of accused 2.

14.49      On 4 October 2013 petrol to the value of R468,05 was put into a vehicle driven by the daughter of accused 6 and 7 at a petrol station and charged to the account of accused 2.

14.50      During the period October to November 2013 the maintenance of the pool at the home of accused 6 and 7 was paid for by accused 1.

14.51      The total value of the benefits to accused 7 amount to R1360 713,86.

14.52      For the period 4 January 2013 to 30 September 2013 accused 7 paid accused 1 R91 000 ostensibly for the debit orders of the vehicles.

Cross examination of Wessels

14.53      It was put to him that accused 4 had cash with which to pay his clothing store accounts but because accused 1 was with him, accused 1 wanted the cash and paid the stores with his credit card. The witness could not deny that.

14.54      It was put to him that it was absurd to suggest that accused 5 would perpetrate corruption for meagre amounts but the witness could not comment on that allegation.

14.55      Wessels agreed with accused 5’s legal representative that the prescribed form used for the disclosure or registrable interests did not make provision for the disclosure of loans or liabilities.

14.56      It was put to Wessels that accused 6 and 7 are relatives of accused 1 and he could not dispute it.

14.57      Wessels could not dispute that accused 6 and 7’s son was not financially dependant on them and was 26 years old at the time when accused 2 paid for a vehicle hired by him nor could he challenge the proposition that accused 7 didn’t know about it.

14.58      Wessels agreed that accused 6 and 7’s daughter was an adult at the time when the Renault Clio vehicle was purchased for her. He couldn’t deny that Kirshia entered into an agreement with accused 1 and 2 for the purchase of the vehicle and sold her Toyota Tazz to accused 2.

14.59      Wessels could not dispute that accused 6 paid Alphera Financial Services for the balance of Kirshia’s motor vehicle.

14.60      He didn’t dispute that accused 7 re-paid accused 1 for the instalments he caused to be made on the vehicles initially.

14.61      Wessels admits that the Toyota Tazz owned by Kirshia was transferred to accused 2.

14.62      It was put to Wessels during cross examination that he is not an auditor, which he admitted, nor independent. He denied that it is unusual for an independent auditor not to be used in a case of this kind.

14.63      Wessels could not dispute the proposition that is also contained in accused 7’s plea, that the BMW vehicles were bought by accused 7 but were for the benefit of accused 6.

14.64      He couldn’t dispute that accused 7 was not aware that petrol for the BMW vehicles were paid by accused 2 because the vehicles were driven by accused 6.

14.65      He conceded that the BMW 320 was traded in and replaced by the BMW 520 and accused 7 didn’t have the two vehicles simultaneously.

14.66      It was also put to him that it was incorrect to apportion the total contract value of the vehicles purchased by accused 7 as a benefit but he said that he believed that but for accused 1’s assistance, accused 7 and her daughter would not have been able to obtain vehicles to that value, hence he apportioned the full contract value even though the vehicles remain under the ownership of the finance company concerned until it was full paid up.

14.67      He admitted that the schedule to the indictment contain certain payments for pool maintenance that are duplicated for accused 6 and 7.

14.68      He couldn’t dispute the proposition that payments to the value of R21 000,00 made by accused 1 to accused 7 were made prior to transfer of the Toyota Tazz to accused 2, but in compensation for the Toyota Tazz

Brigadier Thiruvasigi Hansraj formerly Asaram

15. This witness was the alleged whistle-blower. She was the station commander of Goodwood Police Station when she allegedly uncovered cause for concern about the behaviour of the accused.

16. As part of her liaison duties towards local business persons in the area of Goodwood Station, she met accused 1 after he allegedly requested to meet her.

17. Accused 1 told her to ensure that officer Theunis is given a better vehicle. He also invited her to his home for breakfast. He said that accused 6 and 7 as well as Lennit Max would attend but she declined the invitation.

18. On 14 February 2012, while she was on leave she received a call from Lt Col Vlok who was distressed because accused 1 asked him to provide feedback on a docket involving the alleged illegal possession of a firearm by a young man who was driving with his deceased father’s firearm in his vehicle and was arrested. Accused 1 allegedly used foul language while threatening to harm a certain Capt Engelbrecht in a telephonic conversation that he was allegedly having with accused 5, who was the cluster commander in that area.

19. Capt Engelbrecht approached the witness to complain about the rude behaviour of accused 1. The witness advised her to either open a complaint docket or speak to accused 5 since accused 1 was allegedly speaking to accused 5 at the time. Capt Engelbrecht spoke to accused 5.

20. The suspect in the illegal possession of a firearm docket is Dillon Chetty who accused 1 said was his nephew. He alleged that he was granted permission by accused 6 to bring the firearm to Goodwood SAPS so that it could be destroyed. The witness explained that the normal procedure was not to expect an unlicensed member of the public to bring the firearm to the police station but police officers would instead fetch the firearm themselves. The case against Dillon Chetty was eventually withdrawn because the ballistics expert who had to testify couldn’t be found.

21. On 20 February 2012 accused 1 arrived at the Goodwood Police station and asked to speak to the witness. He told her that he was there because the provincial Inspectorate of the SAPS was coming to do an inspection of that station because it’s the most racist station. He said that his brother, Colonel Naidoo would form part of the inspection. She was astonished that a civilian had so much insight into a SAPS inspection. As it subsequently transpired, the inspection was postponed to 22 February.

22. She told accused 1 that she received a complaint about him being abusive towards Colonel Engelbrecht. Accused 1 became angry and demanded that Colonel Vlok come to the witness’ office immediately. He said he wanted to f… up Col Vlok. Accused 1 was breathing heavily and looked somewhat ill. Her secretary brought accused 1 a glass of water. Accused 1 wanted to call accused 4 to say that he was going to be late for a meeting and asked the witness to call accused 4. She dialled the number and then gave the phone to accused 1. Accused 1 told accused 4 that he should remember the discussion they had that weekend about Goodwood SAPS and also said he would fetch accused 4’s daughter. Accused 1 asked her to call accused 5 but he didn’t answer his phone. Then he asked her to call accused 7 which she did. He spoke to accused 7 and so did the witness. Accused 7 asked her to give accused 1 sugar water, to escort him to his car and to calm him down as he was diabetic. The witness indeed calmed accused 1 down and saw him leave the building but he returned later. She was surprised to see him again but he wanted feedback on the firearm case of Dillon Chetty. Accused 5 walked into her office with accused 1. She called Col Vlok and the branch commander, Col Izaks to provide feedback.  In the docket she found a statement signed by accused 6 in which he said that accused 1 called him about a deceased person’s firearm that he wanted to have transferred onto the name of the son of the deceased. Accused 6 allegedly told accused 1 that the son should hand the firearm into the police for destruction. She called accused 5 aside and told him about how accused 1 insulted Col Engelbrecht. She went back into her office where accused 1, Engelbrecht, Izaks and accused 5 were all present.  Accused 5 told the witness that she called the meeting but she didn’t call a meeting with accused 1 but did so with accused 5.  Accused 5 began reading from the firearm docket to accused 1. Accused 1 asked Vlok why he had carried tales to the witness. He accused Vlok of being racist and telling lies. Vlok became tearful. Vlok felt uncomfortable because accused 5 didn’t stop accused 1. Accused 1 received a phone call and he said that it was from accused 4. He complained to the person on the phone about Goodwood SAPS. Then he said he would pick Dominique up and he would see accused 4 later at dinner. Vlok took out his firearm and placed it on the table. He told accused 5 that he could transfer him anywhere, while crying.  The witness asked Col Izaks to accompany Vlok out of her office. The witness told accused 1 that his behaviour was incorrect. Then only did accused 5 also tell accused 1 that his behaviour is wrong and he should leave.

23. Later after she thought accused 1 had left, he returned to her office for a third time while holding his arm around a crying Vlok. Accused 1 said he had apologised to Vlok and he kissed Vlok and said there was no case going to be made. Accused 1 looked comfortable as though he was in his terrain and Vlok looked uncomfortable and flushed.

24. After accused 1 left her office for the third time, he met Capt Engelbrecht on the stairs, who didn’t greet him. Accused 1 came to her office for a fourth time to complain that Engelbrecht didn’t greet him. By then she was tired and told accused 1 that she would deal with it later.

25. On 24 February 2012 accused 5 asked the witness to attend a meeting at accused 1’s shop as it’s a meeting with business people regarding crime in the area. When she arrived at accused 1’s shop, she was told that accused 5 was in accused 1’s office with him. She found accused 5 relaxed on a couch drinking cappuccino and there were no other business people present. Accused 1 said that the meeting was about crime around his premises. She produced statistics which showed that was no high crime incidents in that sector. The police strategy was to deploy patrol vehicles in the geographical blocks that were crime hotspots. Accused 5 said that the witness must explain the strategy to accused 1, which she did but accused 1 became irritated. Accused 1 said that the witness must inflate the statistics so that there could be more patrols around his business. Accused 5 also explained the strategy to accused 1. Accused 1 said that certain police members must be transferred. The witness said that the meeting is becoming out of order and that she was going to excuse herself from it. She stood up. Accused 5 didn’t complain about her wanting to leave. Accused 1 complained and said she had no respect for accused 5. Accused 1 said that accused 5 should be more like accused 7 and accused 4. She walked out followed by accused 1 who showed her missing drain covers and belaboured his complaints. She told him she’ll step up patrols if he has concerns about drain covers being stolen.

26. Later accused 1 called her to apologise for his behaviour because his wife asked him to do so.

27. Accused 5 called the witness while she was on her way to a meeting to tell her that there was a burglary at accused 1’s business premises and accused 1 complained of poor service delivery by Goodwood SAPS.

28. She later discovered that accused 1 had not reported the burglary but his secretary had called the Goodwood station, asked for the witness, who was not in and hung up without reporting the burglary. She arranged telephonically for a vehicle to go out to the premises of accused 1. Later accused 1 called the witness to say that accused 4 told him to instruct the witness herself to come out to his business. She explained that she was in a meeting but accused 1 wasn’t happy. She sent Capt Dickerson to accused 1. After her meeting she asked accused 5 whether she should still attend at accused 1’s business premises and he said that she should. She didn’t believe it was necessary because police policy was to give priority to armed robberies and murders first and not burglaries. She nonetheless went to accused 1’s business. She was told that the burglar alarm wasn’t on at the time of the burglary and the cameras were not working either. No inventory was kept of the stock but she was told that approximately one million rand’s worth of stock was stolen.

29. On 20 March 2012 there was an armed robbery at a business called Fish 4 Africa.  She received a report from Warrant Officer Wilson to the effect that while she was attending the crime scene, accused 1 arrived and opened fridges and potentially contaminated the crime scene. Wilson claimed that accused 1 was aggressive.

30. Accused 1 invited the witness to lunches and places where other senior police officers would attend but the witness declined the invitations. Accused 1 called her a cheeky Indian woman with an attitude.

31. It bothered her that accused 1 expected preferential treatment and appeared to have so much influence and knowledge in the police force.

32. Under normal circumstances she would have approached the cluster commander and the Provincial Commissioner of Police about her concerns but because accused 1 appeared to have a cosy relationship with them, she couldn’t approach them.

33. In her first encounter with accused 1 he told her that members of Goodwood SAPS came to his business to fit tow-bars and for favours and that he helped an officer whose house had burned down. The witness told accused 1 not to entertain police members.

34. She decided to register her concerns about accused 1 and his relationship with accused 4,5, 6 and 7, the expectations he had of preferential treatment and his behaviour in an Inquiry Docket which she opened and registered with Col Izaks. She didn’t mention the names of accused 4 and 5 in the docket because she didn’t want to expose them then.

35. That same evening after she registered the inquiry, accused 5 called her and asked what the inquiry was about. She told him that she’s not at liberty to discuss it with him. Sergeant Jaftha, who is now accused 5’s wife, was then working at the detective branch of Goodwood SAPS.

36. The following day the witness wasn’t at work.  She gave a report to Major-General Mathope. She wanted to know what he was going to do with the information because she felt that she couldn’t trust anyone. He said that he would take it to Pretoria Head Office.

37. When she returned to work, she was warned to back off by Brigadier Solomons. She felt alone because she couldn’t trust senior officers and junior officers wouldn’t come forward for fear of being victimised.

38. On 28 August 2012, her husband, to who she wasn’t yet married at the time, Colonel Hansraj told her that there was a plot to discredit her with false accusations made by one, Nadeem, who sold cell-phones and who alleged that she took cell-phones from his business.

39. She arranged to meet Nadeem to discuss the allegation. He didn’t arrive at the meeting place. Then she received a call from Mrs Dawjee, accused 1’s wife and that is when she discovered that Nadeem was at accused 1’s business premises. When she arrived at accused 1’s business with Colonel Gouws, Nadeem was sitting there fearfully while accused 1 spoke abusively to him. Nadeem said that the witness took nothing from him. Accused 1 threatened to beat him up. Accused 1 said he thinks that Nadeem knew of the conflict between the witness and accused 1 and tried to impress accused 1 by making false accusations against the witness.

40. On 10 September 2012 the witness met Mrs Dawjee and her son Zameer at their request. They were unhappy about a search and seizure operation that had taken place at second accused’s business premises. Accused 1 arrived late at the meeting. He said something about being a member of PAGAD but the witness didn’t respond. It was put to her during cross examination that accused 1 said he was an affiliate of PAGAD. Accused 1 said that Crime Intelligence was part of the operation and he implied that that only happened because her fiancé ,who is now her husband, works for Crime Intelligence.

41. She denied that she leaked the fact of the investigation of this case to the media and said that the media could have heard about the search and seizure operation.

42. She received a Prestige award for excellent work performance for 2012 to 2013 because Goodwood wasn’t an under-performing station and it in fact performed quite well.

43. According to the witness police management didn’t take her inquiry seriously initially. Instead, accused 4 caused police under his command to harass her by holding repetitive inspections at the Goodwood police station. She endured duplicate inspections by the Police Inspectorate and by the Auditor-General. Goodwood police station was belatedly included in a Project 21 which was designed to assist police stations that were struggling with high crime statistics although Goodwood wasn’t in need of assistance and so it became Project 22. When she queried why Goodwood Police station was included in the Project, accused 5 told her at a meeting that the reason why it was included was because of all the businesses in that area that dealt with second hand goods. General Jacobs informed her that Goodwood police station was added to the project. He was accused 4’s deputy at the time. People who formed part of the Projects were first selected for training and she wasn’t part of that selection initially.

44. She begged the police management, including those to who she reported the inquiry, for feedback but it took a long time before she received any feedback. She was shunned by police leadership because she dared to open an inquiry that implicated accused 4, 5 , 6, & 7.

45. She eventually met with General Matakatha who actually ensured that her inquiry was investigated. General Matakatha introduced her to Colonel Enus, the investigating officer in this case.

46. The witness lodged 4 grievances about the harassment she experienced after reporting the inquiry but it didn’t receive satisfactory attention. She lodged the second grievance because she wasn’t happy with the result of the first grievance. That caused further victimisation. General Jacobs suggested she enter into mediation but she wasn’t satisfied with the outcome. The officers who dealt with her grievances worked under the command of accused 4 such as General Jacobs, Brigadier Solomons, accused 7, Colonel Buffels, General Burger and General Van Wyk. There was a need to lodge the third and fourth grievances because the first and second grievances were not adequately addressed and so the harassment escalated. She receive feedback only that her fourth grievance was sent to the National Commissioner of Police. She received no correspondence confirming receipt of her grievance from the National Commissioner’s office.

47. She believes the successive inspections were designed to divert her attention away from the complaints that she had lodged in the Inquiry docket and she said that is how accused 4 misused his power.

48. She said that accused 1 used the tactic of speaking to accused 4 or 5 on the phone in the presence of other police officers to show that he was connected and he had money and power.

49. Officers at Goodwood police station noticed a man parked in a car outside the station for some hours. They asked him what he wants and he said that he wants to see the Indian lady and he was sent by accused 5. She later discovered that he was a notorious gangster. She believes his visit was an act of intimidation.

50. While she was on sick leave, a Colonel Daniels was sent to sit in her office. She was compelled to remove her belongings from her office although she was only booked off for a short while.

51. She confirmed during cross examination that accused 5 did also reprimand  accused 1 when he spoke rudely to Vlok.

52. She admitted that she didn’t hear accused 4 speak to accused 1 on the phone when the latter held out that they were speaking to one another.

53. During cross examination, she readily conceded that throughout the harassment that she alleged she experienced after she registered the inquiry, she didn’t avail herself of the mechanisms available in the Protected Disclosures Act.

Colonel Vernon Vlok

54. He first met accused 1 in 2007 when he was arranging sponsorship from business people for the police soccer team. Accused 1 sponsored meat for an event of the soccer team.

55. Accused 1 regularly complained about police members and about his businesses’ drain covers being stolen so he attended at accused 1’s business premises from time to time.

56. He went to accused 1’s business premises on 14 February 2012 with Warrant Officer Theunis. Accused 1 was very upset and shouted over a courier service that arrived late. He told the witness that the service delivery at Goodwood police station was poor and he alleged that Captain Engelbrecht is a racist. Accused 1 then allegedly used foul language to describe how he was going to harm Engelbrecht. Accused 1 then referred to Engelbrecht’s husband who is a Lt Col and said that it is easy to have him transferred. He spoke as though he had the authority to have police officers transferred. Accused 1 said he would call the provincial commissioner, i.e. accused 4 but he wasn’t available and then accused 1 called accused 4’s driver, Danie. He asked the driver whether they received the food and whether they ate well. He also spoke about tyres that had to be fitted to a vehicle. The witness could hear the person on the other side of the line laughing when asked whether they ate well. Accused 1 then said he was going to call accused 5 who was the Bellville cluster commander at the time. He used some name on accused 5 and then he told him about Engelbrecht and how he wanted to harm her. He once again used foul language when he mentioned Engelbrecht. At that point the witness stood up and walked outside because he found it offensive. Accused 1 followed him outside and he told accused 1 that he shouldn’t speak about his fellow officers that way in his presence. The witness climbed into the car which Theunis drove. As they arrived at the police station, he noticed some t-shirts on the back seat of their car. He pleaded with Theunis to return the t-shirts because he realised that accused 1 had given it to Theunis. He informed Capt. Engelbrecht and the station commander, Asaram (who subsequently married and became Brigadier T Hansraj) about what accused 1 had said.

57. On 20 February 2012, while sitting in his office, accused 1 walked in and said he’s waiting for the police inspectorate to do an inspection at the Goodwood police station and accused 1 said that he’s brother was part of the inspection.

58. He found it peculiar that a civilian would know about an internal police inspection because it had nothing to do with the public. There was an inspection scheduled for later that week but not on that day.

59. At approximately midday on that same day Asaram called him to her office. He found Izaks, Asaram, accused 5 and accused 1 in the office.

60. Accused 1 said he had a complaint. against Warrant Officer Nortje concerning an investigation of illegal possession of a firearm. He alleged that the witness was also involved but the witness said that he wasn’t part of that investigation. Accused 1 threatened to bring a civil claim against the police. Accused 1 then said that he didn’t say the derogatory things about Engelbrecht that the witness alleged he had said.  The witness told the meeting verbatim what he heard accused 1 say. During cross examination, it was put to this witness that both accused 1 and accused 5 deny that those words were uttered. Accused 1 angrily alleged that the witness is corrupt and he is a pig. Accused 1 loudly reprimanded the witness for having told Engelbrecht what accused 1 said about her. He intimidated the witness. Accused 1 said that the witness and Engelbrecht must be separated.  The witness didn’t feel well especially after accused 1 said that he must die. He was upset that accused 5, his cluster commander sat silently by and allowed accused 1, a civilian to speak to him that way. He took out his firearm and placed it on the table and said that he could be transferred anywhere. He went to his office and closed the door. Izaks followed him in and said accused 1 ought not to have spoken that way. The witness was crying. Approximately 10 minutes later accused 1 came into the witness’ office, kissed him on the left side of his head and said he was sorry. The witness walked to Asaram and told her that accused 1 had apologised. Later accused 1 asked him out for coffee but he declined.

61. The next day accused1 called him again and said he must come take down a complaint against Engelbrecht but the witness didn’t go to accused 1.

62. On 16 May 2012, accused 1 called the witness about drain covers that were stolen. Accused 1 said that accused 5 suggested that he call the witness. He sent Warrant Officer Roman to accused 1.

63. On 25 January 2012, when it was National Police Day, accused 5 had organised a big walk from Bellville to Goodwood Civic Centre. Station commanders were seated in the hall as well as accused 1. Later accused 1 confronted the witness and asked him why he left the meeting early when people still wanted to ask him questions. He explained that his mother became ill.  He couldn’t understand why he had to explain his absence to accused 1. He made a statement for this case.

64. He was challenged during cross examination on how he could have heard the voice on the other side of the telephone line when accused 1 purported to be speaking to accused 5. The witness said he heard the sound of accused 5’s voice on the other side of the line.

65. He admitted that he couldn’t hear what the person on the other side of the line was saying.

66. The witness explained during cross examination that Theunis wasn’t present throughout the conversation between accused 1 and himself on 14 February 2012.

67. He denied that accused 1 called him to his business premises on 14 February 2012 to complaint about cases he made of stolen drain covers and other acts of vandalism that the police failed to keep a record of. He could not recall the purpose of his visit on that day but he also explained that accused 1 often complained in general terms and expected preferential treatment for his complaints and he wanted extra patrols around his business but the witness believed all people should be treated the same.

Colonel Deidre Engelbrecht

68. She received a report from Vlok about what accused 1 said about her. Her duties included doing the grids, planning the areas of operation and setting aside focus areas for crime prevention.

69. She felt humiliated and embarrassed by what Vlok told her.

70. On 20 February 2012, she didn’t greet accused 1 when she saw him walk out of Asaram’s office.

71. She was questioned concerning accused 1’s allegation that when the police fail to record the correct crime statistics, certain areas would not receive adequate patrols. She agreed that that could happen but she didn’t believe that it happened at Goodwood police station.

72. She agreed that the statement that she made was given to Asaram and it wasn’t commissioned in her presence and the date on which it was commissioned appears to be incorrect.

Captain Wayne Barry Theunis

73. He was the communication officer and media liaison at Goodwood police station. He met accused 1 who gave the police a donation when they had a fun run to raise funds. Asaram became the station commander in 2009. During her tenure, there was only one occasion when accused 1 was asked to donate for a Mandela Day celebration where accused 1 donated heaters. Asaram later stopped all donations from anyone to the police. He recalled that accused 1 complained about his drain covers being stolen but he didn’t want to lodge a formal complaint and provide a statement. He remembered one occasion when he accompanied Asaram to accused 1’s business and they had a meeting inside while he waited outside. When they came out, accused 1 told Asaram that she must give the witness a new car. It did strike him as strange that accused 1 involved himself so much with police matters.

74. The witness confirmed that he accompanied Vlok to accused 1’s business on 14 February 2012. He heard accused 1 say Goodwood police station is the most racist; that Colonel Engelbrecht was a racist and she allegedly only provides overtime for her friends. Accused 1 said he was going to call the provincial commissioner, then his driver and finally accused 5, the cluster commander.

75. He heard accused 1 refer to accused 5 as a “boesman” on the phone. The witness felt uncomfortable about the disparaging words that accused 1 used when speaking about Engelbrecht and the derogatory word he used on accused 5, hence he stepped outside the business premises of accused 1 and waited outside for Vlok. Accused 1 and Vlok later walked outside and accused 1 showed Vlok where some trees were stolen. Accused 1 gave the witness two golf t-shirt but when Vlok saw the t-shirts, he said that the witness should take them back but he felt too embarrassed to do so.

76. He first provided Asaram with a handwritten statement which was then typed and he later signed the typed statement.

77. He explained that if a businessman wanted more patrols, that would be acceded to only if the business is in a hot spot area where a number of crimes have been reported.

78. He couldn’t explain why his statement wasn’t commissioned.

Warrant Officer Elsabe Nortje

79. Stationed at Goodwood for past 9 years. She became the investigating officer in the illegal possession of firearm case. She liaised with the prosecutor who provided guidance concerning the matter. The suspect was working in Johannesburg and failed to appear in court. She asked the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of the suspect. The firearm in that case was sent to Ballistics for testing. The firearm’s serial number coincided with that of a firearm belonging to someone who lived in Pretoria. She believed she couldn’t charge a suspect if the serial number belonged to a firearm in the possession of its lawful owner. She discussed the issue with the prosecutor and the case was withdrawn. The firearm was sent for destruction at the request of the wife of the deceased owner. She said that she would normally give feedback on the progress of a docket to the complainant. Accused 1 wasn’t the complainant and he wasn’t entitled to receive feedback. Accused 1 didn’t approach her for feedback nor did the suspect contact her for feedback.

80. She typed a statement for Captain Dickenson who was her superior.

81. She couldn’t understand why accused 1 complained about the investigation of the case because the outcome was to the advantage of the suspect.

82. She understood that accused 1 had threatened a civil action and there was an internal departmental inquiry about the conduct of the investigation. She told Asaram that the case was withdrawn because there was a problem with the serial number. She did so even before accused 1 lodged a complaint.

83. She only saw accused 6’s statement in the docket when she prepared to testify in this case.

Warrant Officer Wilson

84. She was a detective who attended a robbery crime scene at Fish 4 Africa, a business in Goodwood. She was busy taking statements, speaking to the fingerprint expert and photographer. The interior of the shop had been cordoned off to enable the police to locate fingerprints and to take photos. She heard a commotion and found accused 1 leaning on a fridge, asking for his fish. He was touching the fridge and contaminating the scene. She asked him a few times to leave but it took a while before he left because he insisted on being given his fish order. Accused 1 asked her if she didn’t know who he was and she said that she didn’t. She later established who accused 1 was. She was upset with the officers who cordoned off the scene because they allowed accused 1 to go into the shop.

85. Much later she went to accused 1’s business with Warrant Officer Horne. They were told to attend because it was a complaint of theft. They usually didn’t attend the scene when it involved common theft but they followed orders. She felt uncomfortable because accused 1 was speaking to them about their boss, Arno, i.e. accused 4 who he felt he needed to call in their presence. He purported to discuss a lunch arrangement and golf with accused 4.

86. She wrote out her own statement and signed it but not before a commissioner of oaths. She doesn’t know how it came to be commissioned.

Brigadier Anand Pillay

87. He was cluster commander of Milnerton cluster in February 2013. On Saturday 15 February 2013 while he was at movies with his son, his phone rang and he could see it was the provincial commissioner who is now accused 4, that called him. When he tried to answer the call outside, it had stopped ringing. He assumed that if accused 4 called him, it had to be urgent. Immediately thereafter he received a call from accused 1 who he didn’t know at the time. Accused 1 told him that he received the witness’ number from accused 4. He said that his brother’s flat in Century City had been burgled and he wasn’t satisfied with the service he was receiving from Milnerton police. He also said that accused 6 was with him and he was the station commander of Cape Town police station and if Milnerton was not prepared to do the investigation, Cape Town would do it. The witness responded that it’s a Milnerton case and he would contact the duty officer, Colonel Sutherland. He then called Sutherland and asked her to go attend the crime scene. The witness also sent accused 4 a text message informing him that he had sent Sutherland out to the scene.  After the movie at approximately 22h00, the witness called accused 1 to find out if he was satisfied and he said that Sutherland was there and he was satisfied. Accused 1 wanted to meet the witness and buy him a salomie but the witness declined the offer as he sensed that accused 1 wanted to become familiar with him.

88. A few days later accused 1 called the witness again and said that he wasn’t satisfied with the attention that the case was receiving. Accused 1 said that he went to Century City and obtained the security camera footage. Accused 1 said that computers with important work on were stolen from his brother’s flat and the computers were required urgently. He said that on the footage one can see a white golf with a black fender leaving and on the back seat he could see a flat screen t.v. Later that vehicle was found in Gugulethu. Accused 1 said that there were three brigadiers sitting with him and the witness could hear voices in the background. The witness heard the female voice of accused 7 say: “Tell him if he doesn’t  have anyone to do it, I can do it.” He recognised her voice because she was station commander of Tableview at the time and they spoke regularly. The witness said that it’s a Milnerton case and they are capable of investigating it. The witness then called the station commander at Milnerton, Brigadier Stander and gave him the information that accused 1 had given the witness.

89. Stander went to the flat but found no video footage. Later accused 1 called the witness again and said that the white Golf was seen in Kenilworth or Mowbray and accused 1 needed the computers urgently. The witness called Stander again and said that he should give feedback directly to accused 1.

90. On 21 February 2013, accused 1 called the witness and said that he wasn’t satisfied with the investigation and would like to meet the witness.

91. At 14h00 on 21 February 2013, accused 1, with his son Zameer and his brother Shabir Dawjee, arrived at the witness ‘office for a meeting.

92. The witness had the group commander of detectives, a cluster detective who was a relative of accused 4 and the investigating officer all present at the meeting.

93. The officers gave accused 1 feedback and said that the case was receiving priority and they were doing their utmost to resolve the investigation. The witness told accused 1 that it’s a Milnerton case and he doesn’t appreciate other brigadiers from other police stations offering to do the investigation. Accused 1 responded by saying that the witness should not speak like that about accused 4 who had the right to become involved because they were friends and accused 1 would die for accused 4. The witness said that he wasn’t referring to accused 4 but to other brigadiers.

94. Accused 1 said that he was going to call the Provincial Commissioner, i.e. accused 4 and he began dialling. The witness said the meeting was concluded and everyone left his office. Accused 1 spoke loudly in the passage on his phone and said: “General, this person is very arrogant and I’m not getting any assistance.” He allowed accused 1 back into his office at the request of the latter’s son. Accused 1 explained that he had known accused 4 for a very long time and that he had done a lot for the police. He funded or sponsored many projects and awards. Then accused 1 asked the witness what type of car he drives. The witness said that he drove a Mercedes Benz. Accused 1 said that he could get a BMW for the witness because he has shares in a SMG BMW dealership. Accused 1 said that he got a BMW X5 for accused 4, a BMW 1 series for General Jaftha who was deputy Provincial Commissioner, a BMW X 3 for Brigadier Petersen and Colonel Mathews and a BMW 5 series for accused 6. Accused 1 then asked the witness if he applied for the cluster commander position at George because a Major-General’s position was advertised there. The witness deliberately told accused 1 that he didn’t apply while in fact he did. Accused 1 said that the witness is lying because accused 6 also applied for that position and he saw the shortlist and the witness wasn’t on the shortlist. The witness wanted to know why accused 1 needed the stolen computers so urgently and accused 1 said that he set his brother up in a business that supplies the SAPS with ink cartridges and he needed the invoices on the computer. The witness said he wasn’t interested in accused 1’s offer of a vehicle. After accused 1 left, the witness spoke to Lt Col Lamoer and asked him to tell accused 4 that accused 1 was using his name and it could compromise his position.

95. A few months later the witness attended a meeting at the Provincial Command centre where he met accused 6. He jokingly told accused 6 how could accused 1 want to buy him a salomie.  That evening the witness received a call from accused 1 who said that he had been informed that the witness accused him of trying to bribe him with a salomie. The witness replied that he merely joked about it.

96. On 19 September 2013 he was again at the Provincial Command centre. The witness asked accused 6 how his friend, Dawjee was. Accused 6 said that the witness had formed the wrong impression of accused 1 who did a lot for the police. Accused 6 also said that on that day it was accused 1’s birthday. Accused 6 called accused 1 and said that the witness wanted to speak to him. The witness declined and said he would speak to him some other time.  While driving home that day, the witness felt bad because accused 6 said accused 1 was a good person and it was his birthday, so the witness called accused 1 to wish him happy birthday. Accused 1 said he had a good birthday, there were brigadiers at his celebration and accused 4 flew down from Pretoria for his birthday.  Accused 1 said that Indians shouldn’t fight one another. The witness invited accused 1 for coffee on condition that the witness pays.

97. There was an event planned by the provincial commissioner in Atlantis and the witness attended. In the presence of Generals Vearey and Jacobs, accused 4 addressed the witness sternly and angrily and he wanted to know why police member’s private cars were parking on the police station’s grounds and why the grass was cut shortly before he arrived. The witness thought that those were issues to address with the station commander. He tried to explain but he didn’t want to become argumentative with the provincial commissioner, i.e. accused 4.

98. The witness was cross examined by accused 1’s counsel concerning his role and responsibility as cluster commander. It was put to him that if a complainant such as accused 1’s brother wasn’t satisfied with the attention the case was receiving, he could complain to him. The witness agreed but said that there was a chain of command to follow. The complaint should first be made to the station commander but the complainant bypassed the chain of command and as a result he asked Colonel Sutherland to attend the scene herself. In his view, the case did receive priority because Sutherland, the investigating officer and the station commander were involved in the first few days after the burglary. Usually burglaries do not receive that level of attention. Fingerprints were found and a suspect was arrested within a month of the burglary. The witness believes that despite the priority given, accused 1 expected greater priority.

99. The witness said that he ensured that the case received priority because he understood that the provincial commissioner had wanted him to give it his attention.

100. He was questioned about how it is untoward for other brigadiers to have offered to assist with the investigation when Milnerton SAPS wasn’t able to act quickly. The witness said that there were no grounds upon which to conclude that Milnerton SAPS were unable to properly investigate.

101. The witness said that accused 1 expected that the stolen computer had to be found soon after the burglary and he was being unrealistic because stolen goods like that are rarely recovered.

102. When the witness met Asaram some time later, and she mentioned the problems she was having with Mr Dawjee, the witness remembered the problems he had encountered with Dawjee.

103. Thereafter Brigadier Hansraj who works at Crime Intelligence spoke to the witness about his encounters with accused 1 and told the witness that the investigating officer, Colonel Enus would contact him. Colonel Enus did contact him and he made a statement in this case.

104. He drafted his statement with reference to the itemised billing of his own cellular phone so that he could have the dates of contact between him and accused 1 correct.

105. He knew that accused 1‘s telephones were being monitored but he didn’t know who the other suspects were and if their phones were monitored.

Evaluation

106. Since Mrs Dawjee , Zameer Dawjee and Colonel Izaks didn’t testify, I do not rely on what they allegedly informed Brigadier T Hansraj and what Zameer Dawjee allegedly told Brigadier Pillay. Their names are however included in the summary of testimony purely for the purpose of identifying who were present and in the case of Brigadier Hansraj, to explain how she came to attend at accused 1’s  business premises looking for Nadeem Noor.

107. The evidence led by the State sketch a milieu in which accused 1 appeared to have more knowledge about the internal working of the SAPS than most civilians and sought to utilise that knowledge and his friendship/relationship with the remaining accused to obtain preferential treatment and in some instances, a more effective and speedier resolution of his complaints, than the average person.

108. The evidence, which is supported by the pleas of guilty on the corruption counts, also demonstrates the existence of gratifications given to accused 4, 5 and 6.

109. The relevant accused’s subsequent plea of guilty and section 220 admissions are as follows:

110.   In respect of accused 1 to 3:

PLEAS OF GUILTY IN TERMS OF SECTION 112(2) AND ADMISSIONS IN TERMS OF SECTION 220 OF THE CPA

“I change my plea from not guilty to guilty and those of Accused 2 and 3 on the following counts in terms of section 112(2) and make the following admissions in terms of section 220 of the CPA:

Count 3:

13.      I met Arno Lamoer (Accused 4), 25 years ago whilst working in Manenberg as a petrol attendant.  He was a constable at Manenberg Police Station.  Over the years we have remained firm friends as have our wives until Arno Lamoer’s wife passed away.  We holidayed and socialized together.  His children and mine grew up together and my and his children treated our separate homes as their own whilst growing up.

14.      During the period 2011 to 2013 Arno Lamoer ran into financial difficulties.  I, through the services of and with the assistance of Accused 2 and 3, helped him financially. He was then a Lieutenant-General in the SA Police.  I gave R20 000,00 to his daughter on her marriage in 2011, to him R7 000,00 in February 2012, R15 000,00 in December 2012, R2 000,00 in January 2013 and R10 000,00 in August 2013.  In April 2012 I gave him R3 180,00 towards his holiday accommodation on the Garden Route and in July 2013 R10 149,50 towards him hiring a vehicle.  I gave Arno Lamoer and his family in total over the period from December 2011 to August 2013 R67 329,50.  When Arno Lamoer received his pension he repaid this amount in full. 

15.      I accordingly admit that on 8 occasions during the period 3 December 2011 and 19 August 2013, and at or near the districts of Goodwood, Cape Town, and/or Bellville.  I gave Accused 4, a public officer and his family, monies totaling R67 329,50.   My main intent was to help a very close friend. 

16.      I admit however that at the time of the payments I foresaw as a possibility, and reconciled myself with that fact, that such payment could cause Accused 4 to give me preferential treatment when carrying out or exercising his powers, duties or functions as a police officer should I ever in the future approach him for assistance concerning police matters, conduct that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i) to (iv) of PRECCA.  My actions in making the aforesaid payments were accordingly wrongful and unlawful.

17.      Accused 4 did in fact directly assist or favour me in one instance in November 2013 by giving me a letter setting out my good standing with the SAPS. 

Count 4:

18.      I met Darius van der Ross through my sponsorship of various police activities in the Northern Suburbs.  He was a Brigadier in the SA Police.  I and Accused 2 and 3 sponsored for example a Thula Thula room at Bellville Police Station for victims of crime, police fundraising events, numerous sporting events and sponsored prizes or awards that recognized outstanding police work.  As the evidence has shown I was a businessman that the police could rely on when they were in need of donations for police work.

19.      Darius van der Ross and I became house friends over the years as we shared numerous interests, mostly policing.

20.      Over a period from 30 April 2012 to 15 July 2013 I allowed Darius van der Ross to use the businesses’ petrol account on 5 instances where he bought petrol amounting to R3 324,60.  Towbars Cape CC in April 2012 also sponsored his costs associated with a police golf event in an amount of R4 000,00.  That sponsorship was declared and made known to the SA Police.

21.      I accordingly admit that on these 6 occasions during the period 30 April 2012 and 15 July 2013, and at or near the districts of Goodwood, Cape Town, and/or Bellville, I and Accused 2 and 3 wrongfully and unlawfully gave Accused 5 gifts totaling R 7 324.60.  Our main intent was to help a very close friend of mine. 

22.      I admit however that at the time of the payments I foresaw as a possibility, and reconciled myself with that fact, that such payments could cause Accused 5 to give us preferential treatment when carrying out or exercising his powers, duties or functions as a police officer should I ever in the future approach him for assistance concerning police matters, conduct that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i) to (iv) of PRECCA.  Our actions in making the aforesaid payments were accordingly wrongful and unlawful.

23.      I have read and confirm what is said by Accused 5 in his s.112 plea in paragraphs 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 and confirm and admit that Accused 5 did give me the assistance he described therein.

Count 5:

24.      Colin Govender and I are cousins.  I have known him most of my life.  After he, his wife, Sharon, and children moved to Cape Town our families became very close.   Whenever either my wife and I or they go away, for example, then the parents staying in Cape Town look after all the children. 

25.      We go on holidays together and are the closest of house friends. 

26.      Over the period November 2011 to October 2013 I and Accused 2 and 3 gifted Colin R24 601,44 made up as follows:

26.1         I paid for the families pool maintenance (R5 770,00);

26.2         For vehicle rental (R14 554,97);

26.3         Petrol expenses (R726,47);  and

26.4         Two flight tickets (R3 543,00).

27.      I accordingly admit that during the period November 2011 to October 2013, on at or near Goodwood, I and Accused 2 and 3 gave Accused 6, a public officer R24 601,44 as described above and on the dates there mentioned for his, and/or for the benefit of his family.  Our main intent was to help a very close friend of mine and his family. 

28.      I admit however that at the time of the payments I foresaw as a possibility, and reconciled myself with that fact, that such payment could cause Accused 6 to give me and Accused 2 and 3 preferential treatment when carrying out or exercising his powers, duties or functions as a police officer should we ever in the future approach him for assistance concerning police matters, conduct that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i) to (iv) of PRECCA.  Our actions in making the aforesaid payments were accordingly wrongful and unlawful.

29.      I have read and confirm what is said by Accused 6 in his s.112 plea in paragraph 9.1 to and including 9.8 and confirm and admit that Accused 6 did give us the assistance he describes therein.

COUNT 12:

I.r.o. Accused 1

30.      In February 2013 I offered to assist Brigadier Pillay, should he ever wish to obtain a BMW motor vehicle, by getting him preferential treatment at a BMW franchise in exchange for him assisting me and my brother in getting the police to do their duty expeditiously in investigating a break in at my brother’s flat and in recovering the stolen property.  Such offered assistance involved me going to talk to a friend of mine at SMG Motors (who sold BMW vehicles) to ask that preferential treatment be accorded to Brigadier Pillay should he want to purchase a BMW.

31.      I admit accordingly that at the time I offered to assist should he want to purchase a BMW I foresaw as a possibility and reconciled myself to that fact that such offer could cause Brigadier Pillay to assist in getting police officers under his control to do their duty expeditiously and thereby granting me preferential treatment, conduct that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i) to (iv) of PRECCA and is wrongful and unlawful.

32.      My actions in offering to assist Brigadier Pillay regarding the BMW were accordingly wrongful and unlawful.

COUNT 13:

I.r.o. Accused 1

33.      On a date in October 2013 I spoke to a Police Colonel Hiranwanlal about a VW Polo belonging to me that was in a police pound in Durban.  I wanted my vehicle back.  The Colonel had been told by Brigadier Colin Govender before speaking to me that the return of the vehicle to me was above board.  The Colonel nevertheless refused to assist in the return of my vehicle.  I impressed on him that I was a friend of the police and had sponsored numerous police events and intended to do the same in future.  The Colonel swore at me, ending our conversation.

34.      I admit accordingly that when I told Colonel Hiranwanlal that I was a friend of the police and had sponsored numerous police events and intended to do the same in future I foresaw as a possibility and reconciled myself to that fact that such a statement could cause Colonel Hiranwanlal to assist me in getting my vehicle released from the pound, conduct that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i) to (iv) of PRECCA.

35.      My actions in offering future sponsorships to SAPS to Colonel Hiranwanwal were accordingly wrongful and unlawful.

COUNT 14:

I.r.o. Accused 1

36.      On 14 October 2013 I gave General Matakata R1 000,00 in cash.  General Matakata was known to my wife.  When General Matakata visited me I gave her the money as my wife had asked me to give her a gift of chocolates.  My intention was to buy her those chocolates but had never gotten around to doing so.  At the time that I gave her the money I told General Matakata that the money was from my wife.

37.      I admit however that at the time of the payments I foresaw as a possibility, and reconciled myself with that fact, that such payment could cause General Matakata to give me preferential treatment when carrying out or exercising her powers, duties or functions as a police officer, either in connection with my complaints to her at our meeting about the investigation in the present case, or  should I ever in the future approach her for assistance concerning police matters, conduct that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i) to (iv) of PRECCA.  My actions in making the aforesaid payments were accordingly wrongful and unlawful.

COUNT 15:

I.r.o Accused 1

38.      Lieutenant General Thulani Ntobela, a police officer stationed in Mpumulanga, had asked Colin Govender about obtaining tickets to attend a jazz festival in Cape Town in late 2013.  Colin Govender asked me if I had spare tickets to the festival.  I did have spare tickets.  I phoned General Ntobela whom I had met through Colin and said he could have the spare tickets in exchange for transport when and if I went to Mpumulanga.  I sent him the spare tickets.

39.      I admit however that at the time of giving of the tickets I foresaw as a possibility, and reconciled myself with that fact, that such payment could cause General Ntombela to give me preferential treatment when carrying out or exercising his powers, duties or functions as a police officer should I ever in the future approach him for assistance concerning police matters, conduct that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i) to (iv) of PRECCA.  My actions in making the aforesaid payments were accordingly wrongful and unlawful.

COUNT 16:

I.r.o Accused 1; 2 and 3

40.      I was the sole member of Towbars Cape CC (accused 2), Towbars King CC (accused 3) and Shine the Way 307 CC.  All three CC’s fit towbars.  On 9 October 2013 I was approached by Warrant Officer Pieterse to quote on supplying and fitting a towbar to a police vehicle.  He requested me to supply three quotes.

41.      I in turn requested my employees in the three CC’s to supply quotes on supplying and fitting a towbar.  They did.  I failed to disclose that I was the sole member of the three CC’s to Pieterse or the SAPS.  The names of the three managers of the three CC’s appeared on the quotes.

42.      The work was never carried out.  Unbeknown to me Pieterse had been sent to trap me into giving him the three quotes he requested.

43.      I accordingly admit that on the abovementioned date and place and at or near Goodwood, in the district of Goodwood I wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally defrauded Pieterse and/or the SA Police Service, by failing to disclose to Pieterse or SAPS that I was the sole member of the entities that quoted for the work to be done and accordingly were not independent quotations.  The quoted prices however were not inflated and did represent market related prices for the work to be carried out.

COUNT 25:     

DEFEATING OR OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

I.r.o Accused 1

44.      I admit that on or about 02.05.2012 and at or near Goodwood, in the District of Goodwood, I wrongfully, unlawfully and with the intention to defeat or obstruct the course of justice, caused a letter to be drafted in the name of an employee in the employ of Accused 2, namely Lindy-Lou Loock stating that she was not aware of any funds paid to Accused 4.

45.      When I caused the letter to be drafted and placed into the personal files of Lindy-Lou Loock I knew that such letter did not reflect the truth as I knew she was aware of me paying amounts that set out in items 1 – 4 of schedule 1 to the indictment to Accused 4 as such financial transactions were done with her knowledge as bookkeeper. 

46.      Such letter was compiled because I was at loggerheads with Colonel Asaram and possibly would need the letter to counter her allegations that my relationship with Accused 4 was somehow corrupt.  I admit that I thereby attempted to defeat or obstruct the course of justice having such a letter drafted and placed in Ms Loock’s personal file.

I never used the letter in any way and the letter at all relevant times remained in the personal file of Mrs Loock.

COUNT 26:     

FRAUD 

I.r.o Accused 1

47.      During the course of 2011 I was approached by Andre Petersen, a relative by way of his marriage to a family member, Zaida Karriem, and who was previously employed by me as a manager at Towbars King, for assistance in purchasing a vehicle for him as he did not qualify for bank finance.

48.      He contacted me and asked me to buy the car in my name and to finance the car in my name and that he would pay me the installments I had to pay to Alphera Financial Services to pay for the car. The underlying agreement between myself and Mr Petersen was that when the last installment was paid I would transfer ownership of the vehicle to him. The installments that Mr Petersen would pay me amounted to R 3 000.00, which instalment included insurance on the vehicle.

49.      Mr Petersen resided in Durban with Zaida Karriem.  Mr Petersen took the Polo during May 2011 to Durban.

50.      During the early part of 2012, Mr Petersen stopped making payments to me.  I contacted him and demanded the return of the vehicle as he was no longer making the payments as agreed.  I also withdrew my permission for him to use the Polo.  I also informed Zaida Karriem of the withdrawal of my permission for Petersen to use the vehicle and that he should return the Polo.

51.      I continued to pay the instalments due to Alphera Financial Services as set out in the instalment sale agreement.

52.      By August 2013, Mr Petersen had still not returned the Polo to me.  I approached Accused 5 for assistance and requested that the matter be investigated so that the Polo can be returned.  On or about 15 August 2013 I signed an affidavit drawn up by Warrant Officer McGregor that set out the above facts.  The affidavit is attached hereto marked “MSD1”.  A docket was opened on the charge of “use of vehicle without owner’s consent.”

53.      I was later informed by the investigating officer that he had taken the docket to the Regional Prosecutor who had then converted the charge to theft.

54.      After some investigation by the SAPS, the vehicle was eventually traced and recovered in Durban in the possession of Mr Petersen.  The vehicle was eventually returned to me after I had withdrawn the charge of theft against Mr Petersen.

55.      I admit that I failed to comply with certain sub-clauses of the instalment sale agreement with Alphera Financial Services as set out on page 59 of the indictment being:

55.1         The Polo was to be kept in my possession or under my control at all times;

55.2         If the Polo became lost or stolen I was obliged to immediately inform Alphera in writing thereof;

55.3         I was obliged to inform Alphera in writing of any change concerning;

·           the address of the premises in which the Polo was ordinarily kept;

·           the name and address of any other person to whom possession of the Polo had been transferred.

56.      I did not and had no intention of keeping the vehicle in my possession or under my control when I signed the agreement.  I did not inform Alphera in writing of the address where the Polo was ordinarily kept nor did I in writing tell them of the transfer of possession to Mr Petersen.

57.      I however did honor my payment obligations to Alphera Financial Services, and paid all amounts owing to them even though Petersen stopped paying me.  This company has never complained of any wrong doing on my part.  I have fully paid for the car.

58.      I accordingly admit that on or about 27.05.2011 and at or near Goodwood, in the district of Goodwood, I wrongfully, unlawfully and with the intent to defraud, falsely and to the potential prejudice of Alphera Financial Services, failed to inform them of the underlying agreement I had with Petersen and that Petersen was to take possession of and use the vehicle and store the vehicle away from me.

COUNT 27:     

DEFEATING OR OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE 

I.r.o Accused 1

59.      Mr Petersen resided in Durban with Zaida Karriem. Mr Petesen took the Polo mentioned above during May 2011 to Durban. 

60.      During the early part of 2012, Mr Petersen stopped making payments to me. I contacted him and demanded the return of the vehicle as he was no longer making the payments as agreed. I also withdrew my permission for him to use the Polo. I also informed Zaida Karriem of the withdrawal of my permission for Petersen to use the vehicle and that he should return the Polo.

61.      I continued to pay the instalments due to Alphera Financial Services as set out in the instalment sale agreement as also the insurance amounts.

62.      By August 2013, Mr Petersen had still not returned the polo to me. I approached Accused 5 for assistance and advice and told him what is set out above.  I made use of him firstly because I was not able to read and write fluently and secondly because he was far better equipped to explain my predicament.   He in turn relayed the information to Warrant Officer Bronwyn McGregor a police officer who then drew up my statement for me.  I signed it.  The facts contained in such affidavit are all true and correct.  The affidavit is attached here to marked “MSD1”.  A docket was opened on the charge of “use of vehicle without owners consent”. 

63.      I was later informed by the investigating officer that he had taken the docket to the Regional Prosecutor who had then converted the charge to theft.  I had no input and played no role in such a decision.

64.      After some investigation by the SAPS, the vehicle was eventually traced and recovered in Durban in the possession of Mr Petersen.  The vehicle was eventually returned to me after I had withdrawn the charge of theft against Mr Petersen.

65.      I failed to accurately describe the true circumstances of the alleged offence of driving a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent in that my statement says:

“The suspect however fail (sic) to return the vehicle.  He disappeared with the vehicle is (sic) now allegedly somewhere in the Durban area.”

The affidavit (“MSD1”) did not reveal the following details:

65.1      I intended to transfer ownership of the vehicle to Petersen when the vehicle was paid for;

65.2      Petersen took possession of the vehicle for his personal use in Durban with my consent prior to me rescinding my consent;

66.      The Affidavit was misleading in that it failed to indicate that Petersen was allegedly using the vehicle without my consent in Durban and not the Western Cape, meaning that any crime was committed in Durban, to be investigated by Durban SAPS and not the Western Cape and its SAPS members. A Durban investigation would have deprived me of being able to call upon the assistance of Accused 5.

67.      Accordingly, I plead guilty to Defeating or Obstructing the Course of Justice. “

111.   In respect of accused 4:

Plea of guilty in terms of section 112(2) and admissions in terms of section 220 of the CPA:

“15.        I changed my plea from not guilty to guilty on the following count in terms of section 112(2) and makes the following admissions in terms of section 220 of the CPA:

Count 7:

Corruption in contravention of section 4(1)(a) read with sections 1, 2, 4(2), 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 12 of 2004  - Corrupt activities relating to public officers  (Accepting or agreeing or offering to accept a gratification)

I admit that:

During the period December 2011 to September 2013, on the dates mentioned in Column 2 of Schedule 1 and at or near the places mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule 1, in the districts of Goodwood and/or The Cape, I, being a public officer as described in the Preamble, wrongfully and unlawfully agreed to accept and/or accepted from Accused 1 to 3 the gratifications  (in the form of loans) described in the Preamble and mentioned in Schedule 1, for my benefit and/or for the benefit of any other person, in order to act personally or by influencing another person so to act, in a manner prescribed in section 4(1)(i) to (iv) of PRECCAA  (as described in the Preamble).

16.    I further wish to state that no favours were done for acc 1 to 3 up and until 17 November 2013 (sworn affidavit of investigating officer dated 30 September 2013 refers).

17.    I accordingly admit that I wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally gave a letter of good standing to accused no 1 for the benefit of accused 1 to 3 in a manner as prescribed in section 4(1)(i) to (iv) of PRECCAA  (as prescribed in the PREAMBLE).  I admit that my intention to commit the crime was dolus eventualis as when I gave the aforesaid letter of good standing I foresaw as a possibility that such letter would play a role in what is prescribe in the PREAMBLE.”

112. In respect of accused 5:

PLEAS OF GUILTY IN TERMS OF SECTION 112(2) AND ADMISSIONS IN TERMS OF SECTION 220 OF THE CPA

“8.1        I change my plea from not guilty to guilty on the following counts in terms of section 112(2) and make the following admissions in terms of section 220 of the CPA:

Count 8:

CORRUPTION in contravention of section 4(1)(b) read with sections 1, 2, 4(2), 21, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 12 of 2004 (“PRECCAA”) – Corrupt activities relating to public officers (offering or giving a gratification).

8.1.        Over a period from 11 May 2013 up to and including 15 July 2013 I, with the permission of Accused 1, used the petrol account of Accused 2 and/or Accused 3 on 5 instances to the value of R3 324,60. I filled my personal vehicle with petrol to the value mentioned above. Accused 1 also sponsored me for a police golf event in the amount of R4 000,00 in April 2012.  That sponsorship was declared and made known to the SA Police in the prescribed manner.

8.2.        I accordingly admit that on 5 occasions during the period 11 May 2013 up to and including 15 July 2013, at or near the places mentioned at numbers 2 to 6 in Column 4 of Schedule 2, in the districts of Goodwood and/or The Cape, I, being a public officer as described in the Preamble, wrongfully, unlawfully and with dolus eventualis agreed to accept and/or accepted from Accused 1 to 3 the gratifications mentioned above and described in the Preamble (excluding the R4000.00 golf sponsorship) for my benefit.

8.3.        I admit that my intention to commit this crime was dolus eventualis as when I accepted the aforesaid gratifications I foresaw the possibility that such gratifications would induce me in the execution of my duties to act, personally or by influencing another so to act in a manner that amounts to improper preferential treatment of Accused 1, 2 or 3. Despite forseeing this possibility, I still accepted the gratifications.

9.    Accordingly I admit the following interventions by me, which amounted to improper preferential treatment in favour of  Accused 1:

9.1.       In and during August 2013, Accused 1 called me from Parow Arms. He indicated that he needed certain documents to be certified. He said he needed me to assist him. I immediately contacted Lt. Williams and told him to go to Parow Arms to assist Accused 1, which he did.

9.2.       In and during August 2013 I assisted Accused 1 in opening a case for use of a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent. Accused 1 informed me that the vehicle was in Durban. I personally took his statement and gave instructions to my officers to expedite the investigation. I gave this matter my personal attention and improperly prioritised its investigation.  

9.3.       During the period from May 2013 onwards, Accused 1 approached me for police assistance and/or to complain about police service delivery. When he did so, I would give him improper preferential treatment personally or by directing others to do so.”

113. In respect of accused 6:

PLEAS OF GUILTY IN TERMS OF SECTION 112(2)

“7.     I plea guilty to the following counts in terms of section 112(2) and make the following admissions in terms of section 220 of the CPA:

COUNT 9:     CORRUPTION in contravention of section 4(1)(a) read with sections 1, 2, 4(2), 21, 24, 25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 12 of 2004 – Corrupt activities relating to public officers (Accepting gratifications).

During the period November 2011 to October 2013, on the dates mentioned in Column 2 of Schedule 3 and at or near the places mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule 3, in the district of Goodwood, Accused 6, being a public officer as described in the Preamble, wrongfully, unlawfully and with dolus eventualis accepted from Accused 1 to 3 the gratifications described in the Preamble and mentioned in Column 3 of Schedule 3 (excluding item 14 of Column 3  of Schedule 3) for the benefit of Accused 6 :

Mohamed Saleem Dawjee (Accused 1) and I are cousins. I have known him most of my life. Our families are supporting each other when the need arises from time to time with loans and business arrangements. We go on holidays together and are the closest of house friends. Over the period November 2011 to October 2013 I received the following gratifications in the amount of R 24 601,44 from Accused 1, 2 and 3:

7.1                Payment of pool maintenance (R5 770,00);

7.2                For vehicle rental (R14 554,97);

7.3                Petrol expenses (R726,47);

7.4                Two flight tickets (R3 543,00).

8.    I admit that my intention to commit this crime was dolus eventualis as when I accepted the aforesaid gratifications I foresaw the possibility that such gratifications would induce me in the execution of my duties to act, personally or by influencing another so to act in a manner that amounts to improper preferential treatment of Accused 1, 2 or 3. Despite forseeing this possibility, I still accepted the gratifications.

9.    Accordingly, and with the above mentioned personal acts and influences by me, I admit to the following interventions referred to in Schedule 6 of the indictment :

9.1     During February 2013 I was willing to go to an address in Gugulethu after hours to check on a vehicle which was used in a burglary of at the house of Accused 1’s brother in the event that the Cluster Commander of Milnerton, Brigadier Pillay, had not have anybody available to do so. (Item 17).

9.2     During February 2013 I introduced W/O Knoetzen to Accused 1 in my office to assist Accused 1’s daughter with an appeal in respect of her fire-arm license application. (Item 25).

9.3     Lieutenant General Ntombela, a police officer stationed in Mpumulanga, asked me about obtaining tickets to attend a jazz festival in Cape Town in late 2013. I asked Accused 1 if he had spare tickets. Accused 1 then contacted General Ntombela and gave his spare tickets to General Ntombela directly. (Item 12).

9.4      During July 2013 I introduced Captain Hendricks to Accused 1 to assist him with an application to temporarily possess a fire-arm in terms of a regulation 86(4) form. (Item 26).

9.5         During July 2013 I requested Constable de Jager to hand over a Norinco pistol to Accused 1 in terms of the regulation 86(4) form. (Item 32 & 34).

9.6         During July 2013 I arranged an appointment for Mr Ross with the designated police officer, Captain Hendriks, to assist Ross with the application for a fire-arm license. Ross accordingly attended at the Cape Town police station and Hendricks assisted him with the motivation of the application. (Item 36).

9.7         During August 2013 Accused 1 enquired from me to make printouts of his and his wife’s fire-arm registrations to see whether he would qualify for another firearm. I then asked W/O Knoetzen to make the printouts. (Item 43).

9.8         During October 2013 I called detective commander at the SAPS Phoenix to assist Accused 1 with the clearance and handover of the Polo vehicle which was recovered (and not stolen) as per the docket. (Item 64 & 65).”

114.   In respect of accused 7:

In her plea of not guilty to Count 10, accused 7 provides the following explanation:

1.         Ms Govender denies that she received, accepted, agreed or offered to accept any gratification from Accused 1, 2 or 3 either for the benefit of herself or for the benefit of another person.

2.         Ms Govender denies that any gratification was accepted by her in order to act in a manner that amounts to illegal, dishonest, unauthorised exercise, carrying out or performance of any powers, duties or functions arising out of her legal obligations as a public officer and more specifically that she received gratifications corruptly in furtherance of the private, personal or business interests of Accused 1 to 3.

3.         Ms Govender denies that she accepted or received any gratification that amounts to the abuse of her position of authority, a breach of trust or in violation of her legal duties as a public officer or to influence her to use her office or position to advance the interests of Accused 1 to 3.

4.         Ms Govender denies that she received any gratification in order to act in a manner designed to achieve an unjustified result.

5.         Ms Govender denies that she attempted, conspired, aided, abetted, induced, incited, instigated, instructed, commanded or counselled any other person to commit an offence as listed in the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.

6.         >Ms Govender engaged with Accused 1, a family member, in his personal capacity in legitimate and lawful contractual transactions as set out below.