A police captain, Phimi Alfred Sekgobela told the Johannesburg High Court that he handcuffed a man at the arrest scene who was not a suspect, and was unable to identify the legal provision he had acted under.
The concession came as Advocate Annelene Van der Heever, for accused no. 3 and 4, Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala and Tsakani Matlala, opened a fresh line of cross-examination, shifting the focus from what happened during the arrest to whether the officers had the legal authority to do what they did.
By the close of proceedings, presiding Judge Cassim Moosa had intervened, directing counsel to produce a SAPS standing order that Captain Sekgobela said he had never heard of.
Sekgobela’s evidence is that two men, Musa Kekana and Michael Pule Tau, were arrested at the scene.
A third man, David Matlou, was also handcuffed at the scene but, Sekgobela insisted, Matlou was never arrested.
“Matlou was not arrested. He was only restrained,” Sekgobela insisted.
Van der Heever put it to him that, whatever label he gave it, handcuffing and preventing Matlou from leaving amounted to detention. Sekgobela disagreed and said: “He was restrained.”
Asked what legal provision authorised him to restrain Matlou.
Captain Sekgobela did not identify one, instead, he gave an operational explanation, that handcuffing, is how police protect themselves, “especially with suspects who are said to be involved in a serious crime, ” he said.
Counsel Van der Heever seized on the word. Was this man a suspect, yes or no?
“No, he wasn’t,” the captain said.
He explained that the man had been speaking to the occupants of the Viano as officers approached, and that they could not see whether anything was being exchanged between them.
He was searched to ensure he was not carrying a weapon.
Nothing was found on Matlou. He was released, and police asked him to make a statement.
Van der Heever put it to Sekgobela that, at the time Matlou was handcuffed, there was no prima facie basis to suspect him of any offence and, by Sekgobela’s own evidence, nothing found thereafter changed that position.
“Yes,” Sekgobela answered.
Van der Heever then turned to the arrests themselves, which were carried out without warrants on a murder allegation.
Sekgobela confirmed that Kekana and Tau were initially arrested on suspicion of a murder in Vereeniging.
The firearms charge, he said, was added later after items were recovered from the house, followed by a further charge relating to a reportedly stolen motor vehicle.
He also confirmed that the first information he received about the Vereeniging murder came through a police radio broadcast.
No recording of that transmission, or any record of its contents, has been placed before the court.
Van der Heever argued that the information amounted to hearsay.
“I don’t know whether complaints received over radio control are treated as hearsay. If that is the case, then you’re correct,” Sekgobela replied.
He was then asked to identify the jurisdictional facts he relied on to arrest Kekana without a warrant.
Sekgobela pointed to the surveillance evidence described by the State’s second witness, Christiaan Shepherd.
He said the information available to him was that the men who had arrived at House No. 34, 5th Avenue, Kew, in the Hyundai i20 were the same men who later left the property in the Mercedes-Benz Viano.
Van der Heever pressed again for the jurisdictional requirements but the question was not answered in those terms.
She then turned to the search itself, asking what the Criminal Procedure Act requires of officers conducting a search.
Sekgobela replied that a search must be carried out respectfully and that any items moved should be returned to the way they were found.
Asked whether that had happened in this case, he said it had not.
“I wasn’t satisfied with how the search was conducted because when they discovered the items, they were not put back the way they found them,” he told the court.
He then described the sequence of the search, that, officers first cleared the yard to ensure no one was hiding, then examined the area around the vehicle, before entering the house, which he said Kekana unlocked for them.
The search, he said, was for articles contemplated in section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as well as the key to the Hyundai i20, which police had been informed was inside the house.
The vehicles themselves were not searched.
Sekgobela testified that he only inspected the registration and VIN numbers, explaining that members of the Local Criminal Record Centre were responsible for searching vehicles because investigators were not supposed to tamper with potential evidence.
Van der Heever then asked to see the attendance register recording who had entered and left the scene.
“I don’t have the attendance register,” Sekgobela replied.
Counsel put it to him that numerous people, including police officers, private security personnel and paramedics, had moved through the scene and that, without the register, the court could not know who they were or when they had been there.
Sekgobela maintained that the scene had been secured.
Van der Heever then turned to the SAPS standing order governing the management of crime scenes.
“I wasn’t aware of that national instruction. All I know is that once a place is declared a crime scene, it is secured,” Sekgobela replied.
Sekgobela testified that he acted as the crime scene manager until members of the Local Criminal Record Centre arrived.
He said the forensic examination itself had been arranged by Captain Tsotetsi.
That answer prompted the court to intervene.
Judge Cassim Moosa granted a short adjournment to allow Van der Heever to produce the SAPS standing order she had referred to.
When proceedings resumed, Van der Heever told the court she had inadvertently left the document at home.
She said she would produce it on Monday and, for the time being, she would defer that line of cross-examination, along with her intended questions about the management of the crime scene and the role of the Local Criminal Record Centre.
Explaining why the court had intervened, Judge Moosa said it had been put to Sekgobela that a SAPS standing order obliges a crime scene manager to keep a detailed register of every person entering and leaving a crime scene. As Sekgobela had identified himself as the crime scene manager but said he was unaware of any such standing order, the court considered it necessary to have the document placed before it.
In those circumstances, the judge said, the court considered it necessary, in the interests of justice and for the completeness of the record, to ensure there were no grey areas that might later become the subject of complaint.
He directed Van der Heever to produce the standing order when proceedings resume on Monday, 3 August 2026. Cross-examination continues.
