The legality of the police search that led to the arrest of Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala’s co accused Musa Kekana has come under scrutiny.
This comes as the defence argued in the Johannesburg high court on Wednesday that officers had enough time to obtain a search warrant before raiding a Kew property where Kekana was arrested.
Capt Phumi Sekgobela, the state’s third witness, returned to the stand for a third day of testimony as the court continued hearing a trial-within-a-trial to determine whether evidence collected during Kekana’s arrest could be used in the trial of alleged criminal kingpin Matlala and his co-accused.
Matlala, his wife Tsakani Matlala, Kekana, Tiego Mabusela, and Nthabiseng Nzama have pleaded not guilty to 25 charges which include attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, fraud, and money laundering linked to botched hits on socialite Tebogo Thobejane, businessperson Joe Sibanyoni, and music producer DJ Vettys.
During cross-examination, Kekana’s lawyer advocate Riaan Gissing questioned why police relied on the Criminal Procedure Act to conduct a warrantless search instead of approaching a magistrate.
Sekgobela maintained operational circumstances left officers with little choice.
“There were two cars involved in the Vereeniging case (the murder of Armand Swart), a white Hyundai i20 and a Mercedes-Benz. As long as the Mercedes-Benz was on the loose and had not been found, we were worried the Benz would go there (the house in Kew),” he testified.
Pressed on why police did not split their team to secure the second property while another officer applied for a warrant, Sekgobela said they did not have enough manpower.
“I took a decision as an operational commander and it worked for me as everything went according to our plan,” he said.
When Gissing suggested additional backup could have been summoned, Sekgobela responded: “We work as a team. When there’s sensitive information there’s nothing more than the team I trust and that’s how I work.”
The defence argued that between receiving updated intelligence from private security officer Christiaan Shepherd at about 8.35am and arresting Kekana at about 9am, police had sufficient time to begin the warrant process.
Sekgobela said he lacked crucial information, including the names of those who owned the house.
“If I was applying for a search warrant, whose house would I have been searching? The only thing I had in my possession was the address of the house and the registration of the car. I had not yet received the name of the person the search warrant would be for.”
He said in his experience, search warrants require more than an address.
“I have not come across a search warrant that has an address without a name.”
Sekgobela told the court police only learnt the identities of the occupants after arriving at the property.
“I didn’t have time and because of that I immediately thought of the section that allows me to act without a warrant.”
Sekgobela previously testified that guns found in Kekana’s possession after Armand’s murder were also linked to the shootings of Thobejane and Sibanyoni.
Cross-examination continues.
Sowetan
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.