Sharp contradictions, accusations of dishonesty, and conflicting accounts of a dramatic arrest dominated proceedings on Wednesday as the defence intensified its attack on the testimony of Tactical Response Team (TRT) officer Alfred Sekgobela.
The events happened in the trial within a trial involving accused number one and alleged hitman, Musa Kekana.
Advocate Riaan Gissing subjected Sekgobela to sustained cross-examination, questioning the legality of the police operation that led to Kekana’s arrest and challenging key aspects of the officer’s account, including how police gained access to Kekana’s property, whether his constitutional rights were explained to him, and how he was transported after his arrest.
Why did police fail to secure Kekana’s residence before entering?
Gissing first questioned why police failed to secure Kekana’s residence at 34 5th Road while applying for a search warrant before entering the property.
Sekgobela testified that he had requested additional police members for assistance, but their delayed arrival influenced the decision.
The defence also challenged Sekgobela’s earlier evidence that Kekana, while handcuffed, was able to retrieve a remote from his pocket and open the gate to the property.
Gissing argued that the officer’s version was implausible, accusing him of lying.
Sekgobela rejected the allegation, maintaining that Kekana had been handcuffed with his hands in front, allowing him to reach into his pocket.
After the tea adjournment, cross-examination resumed with Sekgobela referring to his 2024 diary, which records details of the arrest on April 17 2024. The defence had requested the diary during the proceedings.
Gissing then questioned the officer about the vehicle used to travel from 8th Road to 5th Road following the arrest.
Sekgobela told the court he could not remember whether they travelled in a Golf 7 or a white BMW but believed it was the Golf.
The defence proceeded to place Kekana’s version of events before the court, stating that on the day of his arrest, he had been with Michael Tau at 8th Road to collect a wheel rim from David Matlou when police in unmarked vehicles arrived.
Sekgobela denies knowing Kekana
According to the defence, a traffic officer allegedly fired two warning shots into the air during the operation.
Sekgobela denied the allegation, insisting there was no reason for any shots to have been fired.
Gissing further put it to the witness that he already knew Kekana before the arrest and addressed him by name before placing him in handcuffs.
Sekgobela denied ever knowing Kekana before that day or calling him by name.
The defence also disputed Sekgobela’s evidence that he had informed Kekana of his constitutional rights after his arrest.
Sekgobela maintained that he explained the rights to Kekana and the other occupants, who indicated that they understood them.
Another point of dispute concerned how Kekana was transported after his arrest.
Gissing told the court that Kekana instructed he had been placed in the boot of a Toyota Fortuner before being driven to his residence at 34, 5th Road.
Sekgobela rejected the claim, saying Kekana travelled seated in the back of another vehicle, not a Fortuner.
The defence also challenged the officer’s account of how police gained entry to the property.
According to Kekana, the remote control shown in photographs during the proceedings had been left inside a Mercedes-Benz Viano, and Sekgobela allegedly instructed another officer to retrieve it to open the gate.
Gissing further put it to the witness that another officer manually opened the gate after receiving Sekgobela’s instruction.
Sekgobela denied the allegation.
The trial within a trial continues as the defence seeks to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained during Kekana’s arrest, with the court still required to determine which version of events is credible before the main trial proceeds.
ALSO READ: ‘He coughed blood’: Court hears about arrest of ‘hitman’ linked to Cat Matlala
- Defence challenged the credibility and legality of police officer Alfred Sekgobela’s testimony regarding the arrest of alleged hitman Musa Kekana.
- Key disputes included how police accessed Kekana's property, whether constitutional rights were explained, and the method of his transportation after arrest.
- Sekgobela denied accusations of dishonesty, including claims about Kekana opening the gate while handcuffed and the firing of warning shots by police.
- The defence questioned the timeline, police procedure, and Sekgobela’s prior knowledge of Kekana, which the officer denied.
- The trial within a trial is ongoing to determine the admissibility of evidence from Kekana's arrest before the main trial continues.
Advocate Riaan
Sekgobela testified that he had requested additional police members for assistance, but their delayed arrival influenced the decision.
Sekgobela rejected the allegation, maintaining that Kekana had been handcuffed with his hands in front, allowing him to reach into his pocket.
After the tea adjournment, cross-examination resumed with Sekgobela referring to his 2024 diary, which records details of the arrest on April 17 2024.
Sekgobela told the court he could not remember whether they travelled in a Golf 7 or a white BMW but believed it was the Golf.
Sekgobela denied the allegation, insisting there was no reason for any shots to have been fired.
Sekgobela denied ever knowing Kekana before that day or calling him by name.
Sekgobela maintained that he explained the rights to Kekana and the other occupants, who indicated that they understood them.
Sekgobela rejected the claim, saying Kekana travelled seated in the back of another vehicle, not a Fortuner.
Sekgobela denied the allegation.
ALSO READ: 'He coughed blood': Court hears about arrest of 'hitman' linked to Cat Matlala
