By Johnathan Paoli
Hawks Tactical Operations Management Section (TOMS) officer identified as Witness I, has claimed he was unknowingly “used” by police officers to legitimise their involvement in the high-profile Aeroton cocaine bust, while admitting that he misled his commanders about his whereabouts and failed to follow proper reporting procedures.
Witness I returned to the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry on Wednesday for a second day of testimony after proceedings were delayed by an urgent consultation with evidence leaders and the submission of a supplementary statement.
Central to his testimony was his assertion that he had become an unwitting participant in an operation that was later described by commission leaders as potentially unlawful.
“The meeting I had with the CI guy and Brown, I did suspect that I was being recorded and that I would play along with what they were doing. The explanation I made of legitimising is what I was informed by General Gerber, who was doing an investigation of General Kadwa and the DPCI members,” Witness I said.
“When I consulted with him, what I’m speaking of here is the explanation he gave me that from his investigation, he suspects that I was being misused in the inquiry by these members,” he added.
The testimony follows the submission of a transcript of a meeting involving Witness I, a Crime Intelligence officer, and controversial political figure Brown Mogotsi.
According to the transcript, Witness I allegedly stated that police officials had “legitimised” their involvement in the Aeroton cocaine seizure and admitted: “I legitimised the operation in a way.”
Evidence leader Advocate Thabang Pooe challenged Witness I’s version, suggesting he had knowingly assisted three officers (Gauteng Traffic Police Deputy Chief Director Samuel Mashaba, SAPS National Intervention Unit officer Warrant Officer Steve Phakula and Crime Information Management and Analysis Centre (CIMAC) commander Warrant Officer Marumo Magane) in justifying their presence at the scene.
Witness I maintained that he had merely been repeating conclusions later drawn by Mpumalanga Hawks head Major-General Nico Gerber and insisted he had been manipulated.
The witness also faced sustained criticism from commission chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga and commissioners regarding his conduct before and during the Aeroton operation.
Madlanga suggested that Witness I had attempted to use an unrelated drug inquiry to insert himself into the Aeroton cocaine investigation.
“It’s clear from the facts that what you were investigating already had nothing whatsoever to do with the drug bust in Aeroton,” Madlanga said.
The chairperson further suggested that Witness I had sought to “leapfrog everyone” already managing the crime scene by claiming his investigation was linked to the drugs discovered there.
Commissioners also criticised his inability to explain the legal basis upon which he believed he could assume control of a crime scene.
When questioned about directives governing crime scene management, Witness I admitted he was unfamiliar with them.
Commissioner Sesi Baloyi challenged the witness over evidence that he had already been briefed about the Aeroton operation before arriving at the scene and had nevertheless failed to inform his commanders.
Baloyi argued that Witness I left Pretoria knowing what was unfolding but concealed his destination by telling his superior he was travelling to the High Court.
Witness I conceded that he should have informed his commanders and acknowledged that reporting was necessary for accountability.
The commission also heard startling evidence that Witness I lived for approximately two years at a house belonging to alleged underworld figure Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala in Mamelodi.
The witness said he was moved to the property after surviving an alleged assassination attempt in which four men attacked him with a sharp object.
According to Witness I, Captain Faleni Zungu arranged the accommodation for his protection.
He claimed he only later discovered that the property belonged to Matlala and insisted he never met or saw the alleged criminal during his stay.
He explained that the Matlala family was not present and that only a tenant living in a back room identified the property as belonging to Matlala.
Witness I told the commission that he had omitted the information from his earlier testimony because he did not regard it as important.
However, he said colleagues later informed him that senior officers were unhappy with his evidence and intended revealing his stay at the property to discredit him.
The inquiry also heard that Witness I doubts the commission has received a complete recording of his meeting with Mogotsi and others, suggesting that portions may have been deleted or manipulated.
The commission continues.
