Key Takeaways
- Suspended Ekurhuleni Deputy Police Chief Julius Mkhwanazi claims his former lover, Witness K, fabricated evidence against him after their breakup.
- Both are charged with fraud and robbery with aggravating circumstances in connection with the 2023 theft of R14.9 million worth of precious stones from Rosebank.
- Mkhwanazi says Witness K told him about an informant who revealed a stash of fake gems in a Johannesburg apartment, prompting a joint police raid.
- He denies being the mastermind, alleges he never received any proceeds, and insists the seized stones needed expert verification.
- Witness K previously testified before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, admitting her role in the theft and describing how the stones were to be taken unlawfully.
- The case remains before the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, with both accused set to face trial on the outlined charges.
Background of the Charges
Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court heard the case of suspended Ekurhuleni Deputy Police Chief Julius Mkhwanazi, EMPD officer Adrian MacKenzie, former EMPD officer Kersha‑Leigh Stohls, and Witness K on Monday. All four face charges of fraud and robbery with aggravating circumstances linked to the 2023 theft of approximately R14.9 million in precious stones from a Rosebank jeweller. Mkhwanazi, who was relieved of his duties pending the investigation, appeared in court alongside his co‑accused to answer allegations that he participated in planning and executing the heist. The prosecution alleges that the group conspired to steal the stones, later selling a portion of them for a profit. The defence, led by Mkhwanazi’s legal team, maintains that the charges are baseless and stem from a personal vendetta rather than any criminal conduct.
Mkhwanazi’s Allegation of a Jilted Lover’s Motive
In his sworn affidavit presented to the court, Mkhwanazi asserted that the primary motive behind the allegations against him was emotional retaliation from Witness K, his former romantic partner. He claimed that after their relationship ended, Witness K became “emotionally distraught and devastated” and decided to implicate him in the precious‑stones theft as an act of revenge. According to Mkhwanazi, Witness K fabricated the evidence that now forms the basis of the fraud and robbery charges. He emphasized that, absent this personal grudge, there would be no credible link tying him to the crime. This narrative attempts to shift the focus from alleged police misconduct to a interpersonal conflict, suggesting that the prosecution’s case is rooted in spite rather than substantiated proof.
Details of the Former Relationship
Mkhwanazi elaborated on the nature of his relationship with Witness K, stating that they were romantically involved as of 2023 and had mutually expressed love, even envisioning a future together that included marriage. He recalled that, within a few months of their courtship, he realized Witness K was not the lifelong partner he sought, prompting them to break things off. He contended that the breakup occurred amicably at first, but residual feelings lingered on Witness K’s side, eventually turning into hostility. By presenting this timeline, Mkhwanazi aimed to illustrate how a recent personal dissolution could have motivated Witness K to act against him, reinforcing his claim that the criminal allegations are a byproduct of a soured romance rather than evidence of wrongdoing.
The Informant’s Tip About Fake Gems
Prior to the breakup, Mkhwanazi said Witness K disclosed to him that an informant had provided her with information regarding a stash of fake gemstones being stored at an apartment in Johannesburg. He explained that social‑media reports had circulated about members of the public being defrauded through the purchase of counterfeit stones in both Edenville (under EMPD jurisdiction) and Johannesburg (under JMPD jurisdiction). Motivated by these reports and Witness K’s tip, Mkhwanazi claimed he tasked two JMPD officers—later identified as co‑accused Adrian MacKenzie and another unnamed officer—to conduct a joint operation with Witness K to seize the alleged fake stones. According to his affidavit, the purpose of the raid was to recover the counterfeit goods and prevent further scams, not to orchestrate a theft of genuine precious stones.
The Police Raid and Seizure of Stones
Mkhwanazi described the events of the raid, stating that he briefly checked on the officers involved while they were in the vicinity of the apartment block in Killarney, Johannesburg. After receiving a short report from co‑accused EMPD officer Adrian MacKenzie, he departed the scene. He later learned that a quantity of precious stones had indeed been recovered from the apartment. However, he stressed that, at the time, he could not ascertain whether the recovered items were genuine or counterfeit, and that expert verification by a precious‑metals specialist was required as part of the standard police investigation. Mkhwanazi maintained that his role was limited to overseeing the operation and that he did not participate in the actual handling, sorting, or disposition of the seized stones.
Denial of Involvement and Claims About Proceeds
The former deputy police chief categorically denied any participation in the theft of the stones or any knowledge that some of the recovered items had been sold to a buyer arranged by Witness K. He specifically refuted allegations that he had instructed or been aware of a sale in which Witness K purportedly received R110,000 for a portion of the stones. Mkhwanazi insisted that he never received any share of the proceeds, arguing that doing so would constitute theft of police‑seized property—a crime he claimed he would never commit. He framed the accusations as baseless attempts to paint him as the mastermind of a criminal enterprise, reiterating that the evidence against him is rooted in personal animosity rather than factual proof.
Current Legal Status and Prospects
As of the latest court appearance, Mkhwanazi, Witness K, MacKenzie, and Stohls remain charged and are awaiting further proceedings in the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court. The case continues to draw public attention due to the involvement of senior police officials and the high monetary value of the alleged theft. Both the prosecution and defence are expected to present additional evidence, including expert analyses of the seized stones and testimonies regarding the alleged informant’s tip. The outcome will hinge on whether the court finds Mkhwanazi’s claim of a jilted lover’s motive credible or determines that the evidence sufficiently links him to the robbery and fraud offences. Regardless of the verdict, the case underscores the complexities that arise when personal relationships intersect with official duties in law‑enforcement investigations.