Key Takeaways
- Photographs recovered from businessman Katiso “KT” Molefe’s phone show five men identified by the Madlanga Commission as the alleged “Big Five” cartel: Molefe, Steve Motsumi, Ignatius Mothakathi, “King Nyambose,” and the late taxi boss Jotham “Mswazi” Msibi.
- A second image also captures businessman Ze Nxumalo, though he is not listed among the five in the commission’s Day 172 record.
- Retired Hawks head Dr Godfrey Lebeya testified that he had no knowledge of the cartel, did not recognize Molefe or Msibi, and was unaware of the alleged criminal grouping.
- While the photos prove the men were together, they do not, by themselves, establish criminal conduct or membership in an organised crime syndicate.
- The images are contextual evidence that complement other testimonies linking the individuals to alleged schemes involving phone‑interception (“grabber”) technology, municipal tenders, and security‑business relationships.
Overview of the Photographs
The Madlanga Commission was presented with a set of photographs retrieved from the mobile phone of murder‑accused businessman Katiso “KT” Molefe. The images depict a group of men standing together, and the commission’s evidence‑record identifies five of them as the core members of the so‑called “Big Five” cartel. A second photograph includes an additional figure, businessman Ze Nxumalo, although he is not named among the five in the specific image shown to Lebeya. The photos have become a focal point because they provide visual proof that the individuals were in each other’s company at the time the pictures were taken, even though mere association does not constitute proof of criminal wrongdoing.
Identification of the Individuals in the Primary Photo
According to the commission’s Day 172 record, the five men pictured are: Katiso Molefe; Steve Motsumi, described as a private‑security businessman; Ignatius Mothakathi; the individual known as “King Nyambose”; and the late taxi boss Jotham “Mswazi” Msibi. The commission asserts that these five constitute the alleged “Big Five” cartel, a grouping that has been referenced in various testimonies concerning illicit activities such as the sale of sophisticated phone‑interception (“grabber”) technology and involvement in municipal tender processes.
Details on Katiso “KT” Molefe
Molefe occupies a central position in the narrative because the photograph was recovered from his personal device. The commission lists him as one of the five individuals in the image and notes his alleged links to the Big Five network. Prior evidence presented to the commission tied Molefe, Msibi, and Motsumi to a plan to sell grabber technology to eSwatini, and indicated that Molefe served as a director of the security company Themy Styles, which Msibi reportedly owned. These associations provide a broader context for why Molefe’s phone would contain images of the other purported cartel members.
Steve Motsumi’s Role
Steve Motsumi is identified by the commission as a private‑security businessman and as one of the five men appearing in the photograph. The record does not elaborate on any separate relationship between Motsumi and each of the other individuals beyond confirming that he was photographed alongside Molefe, Mothakathi, King Nyambose, and Msibi. Earlier testimony, however, linked Motsumi to the alleged grabber‑technology scheme with Msibi and Molefe, and later reports suggested a close association between Motsumi and businessman Ze Nxumalo, further entangling him in the network under scrutiny.
Ignatius Mothakathi’s Presence
Ignatius Mothakathi is the third man named by the commission as appearing in the photograph. The public record does not provide a distinct explanation for how Mothakathi relates to each of the other men in the image; it merely establishes that he was one of the five individuals captured together. Consequently, while his presence adds to the visual evidence of association, the commission has not yet elucidated any specific criminal or business ties that differentiate his role from that of the other photographed subjects.
The Figure Known as “King Nyambose”
The fourth individual is referred to by the commission as “King Nyambose.” Reporting on his identity diverges: SABC News and EWN identified him as Andrew “Boy” Mthethwa, whereas TimesLIVE and The Citizen called him Jabu Mthethwa. The commission’s archive retains the surname and alias without choosing between the conflicting first names. During Lebeya’s testimony, a WhatsApp message in which a sender using the moniker “Malcolm X” told Lebeya that “King Nyambose really appreciates all your efforts general” was highlighted, yet Lebeya insisted he did not know who King Nyambose was and had no prior contact with him.
Jotham “Mswazi” Msibi’s Significance
The fifth man in the photograph is the late taxi boss Jotham “Mswazi” Msibi, whom the commission alleges headed the Big Five cartel. Msibi’s purported ownership of the security firm Themy Styles, with Molefe listed as a director, has been cited as evidence of a business link between the two. Because Msibi is deceased, he cannot respond to the allegations or clarify his involvement, leaving the commission to rely on documentary evidence, witness testimony, and the photograph itself to assess his alleged role in the network.
What the Photographs Prove (and Do Not Prove)
The images confirm that the men were physically present together at the moment the pictures were taken, offering a tangible reference point for inquiries into who knew whom and the extent of any senior law‑enforcement awareness of the alleged network. However, the commission and legal experts stress that co‑presence alone is insufficient to establish criminal conduct or membership in an organised crime syndicate. Proof of illicit activity would require additional evidence—such as communications, financial records, or testimony detailing specific illegal acts—beyond the mere fact of association captured in the photographs.
Connections Emerging from Other Evidence
Beyond the photographs, the commission has heard testimony linking the individuals to various alleged schemes. Molefe, Msibi, and Motsumi were tied to a plan to sell grabber (phone‑interception) technology to eSwatini. Msibi’s ownership of Themy Styles and Molefe’s directorship there were highlighted as business connections. Additionally, WhatsApp exchanges from Msibi’s phone showed Ze Nxumalo forwarding a municipal‑tender advertisement related to a project called Camp Rock, though Nxumalo has disputed the authenticity of those messages. Witness accounts also suggested a close relationship between Motsumi and Nxumalo, further intertwining the figures named in the photographs with broader allegations of corruption and illicit business dealings.
Lebeya’s Testimony and the “I Have No Knowledge” Claim
Retired Hawks head Dr Godfrey Lebeya testified that he possessed no knowledge of the alleged Big Five cartel or its purported criminal activities. He denied recognising Molefe, Msibi, or the nickname “King Nyambose,” and expressed doubt that the grouping was even registered as an organised‑crime project. Lebeya’s statements are significant because they challenge the premise that senior law‑enforcement officials were aware of—or complicit in—the network under investigation. His insistence on ignorance underscores the commission’s task of determining whether the photographs and associated evidence indicate a broader failure of oversight or merely coincidental associations among private actors.
Conclusion and Implications for the Inquiry
The photographs presented to the Madlanga Commission serve as a visual anchor in a complex web of alleged criminal and business relationships. While they confirm that the five men identified as the Big Five—and, in a second image, Ze Nxumalo—were together at some point, they do not, by themselves, substantiate claims of organised criminal conduct. The commission must weigh this visual evidence against testimonies, communications, and financial records that purport to link the individuals to illegal schemes such as grabber‑technology sales and corrupt tender processes. Ultimately, the photographs add context and raise questions about the extent of awareness among law‑enforcement officials, but the inquiry will need to corroborate any assertions of criminality with additional, concrete proof before reaching definitive conclusions.