Madlanga Commission chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga has criticised Hawks investigators over what he described as a “very glaring mistake” in their handling of an investigation into the alleged theft of R1.5 million from a Johannesburg businessman by a Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (JMPD) officer.
Madlanga questioned the judgement of Hawks Warrant Officer Phuti Mashala after he admitted that investigators had disclosed details of a planned entrapment operation to a fellow police officer they suspected of being involved in an alleged bribery scheme.
Mashala was testifying before the commission on Friday, 13 November, as its investigation turned to allegations of criminality and corruption within the JMPD.
The case dates back to August 2023, when businessman Nawazish Ali Raja and his wife were allegedly stopped by JMPD officer Eric Mphahlele while travelling in a grey Mercedes-Benz.
According to evidence presented at the commission, Mphahlele accused Raja of speeding before searching his vehicle. During the search, he allegedly discovered a black bag containing R1.5 million in cash, which Raja said was intended to purchase stock for his business.
Raja told investigators that instead of taking him to a police station as expected, Mphahlele allegedly took the money and instructed him to follow his JMPD vehicle. The officer reportedly changed the intended destination before disappearing with the cash.
Raja and his wife subsequently identified Mphahlele during an identity parade at Hillbrow Police Station.
Mashala told the commission that he and fellow investigator Captain N.J. Tauatswala were assigned to investigate the matter.
However, the investigation took another turn when Mphahlele allegedly offered the Hawks officers R250 000 to make the criminal case against him disappear.
The commission heard that the alleged bribe was to be facilitated through JMPD Inspector Tintswalo Rikhotso and Hawks Captain Matimu Mabunda, also referred to in the proceedings as Keshi Mabunda.
The investigators subsequently sought approval to conduct a section 252A entrapment operation under the Criminal Procedure Act. The operation was intended to catch those involved in the alleged bribery arrangement.
However, the Hawks officers informed Mabunda about the planned operation, despite Mashala having indicated that he suspected her of being involved in the scheme.
This decision prompted Madlanga to question why investigators would reveal sensitive operational information to someone they believed could be compromised.
“So why do you tell her about the entrapment?” Madlanga asked.
Mashala conceded that informing her could have been a mistake, explaining that the investigators had believed she understood what they were trying to achieve.
“It might be where we lost it wrong; we got it wrong there. It might be where we made a mistake in telling her,” he said.
Madlanga was unimpressed by the explanation, questioning the competence of the specialised crime-fighting unit.
“That’s a very glaring mistake by Hawks detectives. You are supposed to be a specialised branch of the police, aren’t you? I would even say you are supposed to be super detectives, aren’t you?” he asked.
Mashala agreed.
“You are defeating the very purpose of what you sought to achieve. It just doesn’t make sense at all to me. Does it make sense to you?” Madlanga continued.
“No, Your Worship,” Mashala responded.
The commission chairperson went further, suggesting that the investigators’ decision had undermined the entire operation and contributed to its failure.
“All of this ends up being totally inconclusive. And in my book, I would say you were responsible for that,” Madlanga told the witness.
He added that Mashala and his colleague were partly, if not particularly, responsible for the operation coming to nothing by informing someone they suspected of involvement in the alleged bribery arrangement.
Mashala, however, did not agree that disclosing the operation was necessarily the direct reason it failed. He maintained that Mabunda could have alerted the other people involved regardless of whether the investigators had informed her.
The commission also heard that Mphahlele has since been convicted in connection with the case, while Rikhotso, Mabunda and JMPD officer Immaculate Phakoane remain in their positions, according to evidence reported from the proceedings.
The allegations against other officers remain subject to investigation and must not be confused with convictions.
The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, chaired by Justice Madlanga, is investigating allegations of corruption, criminality and political interference within South Africa’s law enforcement agencies.
Its proceedings have brought renewed scrutiny to alleged relationships between police officers, criminal networks and individuals accused of abusing positions of authority.
