Key Takeaways
- TRT Captain Sekgobela testified that police acted on intelligence that a white Hyundai i20 linked to the killing of engineer Armand Swart was heading to 34 Fifth Road, Kew.
- Defence counsel Rian Gissing challenged the legality of the arrest and subsequent searches, arguing that police lacked sufficient information to obtain a search warrant and failed to secure the premises while pursuing suspects.
- Sekgobela maintained that he could not apply for a warrant without knowing the occupant’s name, citing procedural requirements and concerns about losing the suspects.
- The exchange grew tense when Sekgobela warned Gissing not to interrupt him, stating, “If I start doing that, it won’t be nice.”
- The trial‑within‑a‑trial will determine whether evidence gathered after Kekana’s arrest on 17 April 2024 is admissible; the outcome could affect the broader case against Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala and his four co‑accused, who face 25 charges including attempted murder, fraud, money‑laundering and illegal firearm possession.
Background of the Case
The Johannesburg High Court is hearing a trial‑within‑a‑trial to decide whether evidence obtained after the arrest of Musa Kekana on 17 April 2024 can be used in the main prosecution of alleged underworld figure Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala and four co‑accused. Matlala, together with alleged gunmen Musa Kekana and Mabusela, Mabusela’s wife Tsakani, and Nzama, faces 25 charges ranging from attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder to fraud, money‑laundering and illegal possession of prohibited firearms and ammunition. The charges stem from alleged attempts on the lives of businessman Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni, media personality Tebogo Thobejane and musician DJ Vettys, among others. The admissibility hearing focuses on the legality of Kekana’s arrest, the explanation of his constitutional rights, and whether police conducted searches without a warrant.
Captain Sekgobela’s Initial Testimony
TRT Captain Sekgobela began his testimony on Monday, describing the sequence of events that led to Kekana’s arrest. He said he acted after receiving information that a white Hyundai i20, believed to have been used in the fatal shooting of Vereeniging engineer Armand Swart, had entered the property at 34 Fifth Road, Kew. Sekgobela explained that he feared the vehicle could be moved or destroyed if police delayed obtaining a search warrant, prompting an immediate tactical response. His account relied on surveillance by private security officer Christiaan Shepherd and video footage from the Vereeniging crime scene, which together indicated that two suspects in the Hyundai were en route to the Kew address.
Details of the Intelligence Received
During cross‑examination on Wednesday, defence advocate Rian Gissing asked Sekgobela to confirm the specifics of the intelligence he had received. Sekgobela affirmed that police were told two suspects involved in the Vereeniging shooting were travelling in a white Hyundai i20 heading to 34 Fifth Road. He added that, while he had identified the Hyundai by its registration number, the registration of a second vehicle—a Mercedes‑Benz—remained unknown at the time. Sekgobela stressed that the continued presence of the unidentified Mercedes‑Benz heightened his concern that evidence at the Fifth Road premises could be removed or destroyed before a warrant could be secured.
Dispute Over the Timeline
Gissing probed the timing of the information flow, suggesting that Shepherd had informed Sekgobela as early as 7:30 am. Sekgobela replied that he did not recall such an early notification and urged the defence to verify the record. Senior State prosecutor Elize le Roux interjected, noting her notes placed the receipt of suspect‑movement information at about 8:40 am, aligning with Shepherd’s testimony that he first saw the Hyundai at approximately 8:35 am. The disagreement over when the intelligence arrived remained unresolved, leaving the matter for legal argument.
Search‑Warrant Procedure Explained
When questioned about the legal requirements for obtaining a search warrant, Sekgobela admitted he could not instantly recall the exact section of the Criminal Procedure Act but described the general process. He explained that an application must state reasons for the search, specify the evidence sought, and justify why investigators believe it is located at the premises. The captain outlined that officers complete a J51 form containing the applicant’s details, the address to be searched, and the court from which the warrant is sought, accompanied by a sworn statement and supporting evidence such as photographs or informer information. He noted that disclosure of an informer’s details depends on the circumstances and the informer’s consent.
Manpower and Operational Decisions
Gissing questioned why Sekgobela did not assign a single officer to guard the Fifth Road property while the rest of the team pursued arrests at Eighth Road. Sekgobela responded that the team lacked sufficient manpower, despite noting the presence of eight TRT members, additional units, and private‑security personnel. He defended his decision as an operational commander, asserting that the chosen approach “worked for me.” When Gissing suggested that securing the property and applying for a warrant could have occurred simultaneously, Sekgobela reiterated that he needed to trust the information flow and could not act on incomplete data.
Requirement to Know the Occupant’s Name
A central point of contention was Sekgobela’s insistence that he could not apply for a search warrant without knowing the name of the person associated with the Hyundai i20. He told Gissing that, based on his experience, a warrant application containing only an address and a vehicle registration number—without at least an alias—was procedurally untenable. Sekgobela explained that he was awaiting his source to provide the occupants’ names, and he did not want to risk losing the suspects by prematurely seeking a warrant. When pressed, he conceded that, at that moment, he lacked sufficient information to satisfy the warrant‑application requirements.
The Heated Exchange with Defence Counsel
As Gissing continued to press the issue, Sekgobela grew visibly frustrated. When the defence lawyer attempted to interrupt his answer, the captain objected firmly: “Counsel, may you please not interject while I’m talking, because if I start doing that, it won’t be nice.” The warning underscored the rising tension in the courtroom. Sekgobela maintained that, despite the verification from Shepherd that the Hyundai had entered the property, he remained unable to file a warrant application without the occupant’s name, and he reiterated that procedural integrity required waiting for that detail.
Implications for the Main Trial
The outcome of the trial‑within‑a‑trial will directly affect whether statements, seized items, and other evidence gathered after Kekana’s arrest can be presented in the principal case against Matlala and his co‑accused. If the court rules the evidence inadmissible, the prosecution’s case could be significantly weakened, potentially affecting charges related to attempted murder, fraud, money‑laundering and illegal firearm possession. Conversely, upholding the admissibility would bolster the State’s narrative linking the accused to a series of violent crimes and financial wrongdoing. The proceedings continue, with both sides preparing legal arguments on the sufficiency of the intelligence, the timeliness of the warrant request, and the respect for procedural safeguards.