The Madlanga commission of inquiry resumed on Wednesday with suspended Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department (EMPD) senior official Julius Mkhwanazi returning to the witness stand.
Mkhwanazi faced questioning over alleged corruption and a controversial cigarette case
Proceedings began with evidence leader Adv Mahlape Sello revisiting the cigarette case, which centres on allegations that Mkhwanazi and a purported rogue unit within the EMPD were involved in extorting shop owners selling illicit cigarettes.
Ties with ‘informer’
Among those implicated is EMPD officer Bafana Twala, one of several officials referred for further investigation amid broader concerns about corruption and failures within the criminal justice system.
The spotlight on the day’s testimony was shone on Mkhwanazi’s relationship with Jaco Hannekom, whom he described as an informer.
“Hannekom was an informer, and we had a close relationship,” Mkhwanazi told the commission.
He admitted that he had attempted to enter into business with Hannekom, explaining that Hannekom sold vehicles sourced through Facebook.
“This was during the Covid-19 pandemic and I invested 100K in the business,” he said.
However, Mkhwanazi maintained that he was unaware whether Hannekom had any authority to confiscate illicit goods.
Cigarettes truck bust
Mkhwanazi testified that he received a phone call from Hannekom as an informer and he told him that they had made a breakthrough and found a truck with the cigarettes.
“It was around 2am, and I rushed to the scene. When I arrived, multiple agencies, including the EMPD, the South African Police Service (SAPS), and private security companies, were present at the scene,” he shared.
Despite this, he insisted he had no prior knowledge of EMPD’s involvement in the operation.
“I didn’t know if the EMPD was involved in the operation. I just woke up and rushed to the scene,” he said.
When Sello asked why he jumped and did not question Hannekom, Mkhwanazi explained that he responded to a call because the information he would share was consistently reliable.
“I knew it would be a successful operation and I wanted it to be ours,” he added.
Lack of documentation ‘suspicious’
However, commissioners questioned why a senior official would arrive at a crime scene at 2am without clarity on who was involved or what his role would be, especially given that any recovered evidence would need to be formally recorded.
Further concerns were raised when it emerged that the alleged success of the operation was not documented in official police records and that EMPD officers who were present reportedly left the scene without filing any reports the following day.
Commissioner Baloyi challenged Mkhwanazi’s version of events, questioning how he could attend such a significant scene without documenting anything.
“That can’t be normal, Mr Mkhwanazi,” Baloyi said.
Mkhwanazi responded that he was frustrated at being called only after the operation had concluded.
“I was angry that I was called after the scene was concluded,” he said.
He further stated that he later followed up by contacting Hannekom to confirm whether the scene had been properly recorded.
Mkhwanazi struggles to explain presence at scene
Tensions escalated when Mkhwanazi was pressed on who exactly was present at the scene, including whether Etienne Van de Walt was among those in attendance.
Initially unable to recall, Mkhwanazi later conceded that Van de Walt might have been one of them, after being reminded of the significance of the night.
Commissioners expressed scepticism over his inability to recall key details, particularly given the gravity of the incident.
Adv Sello directly challenged Mkhwanazi’s account, suggesting his explanation for being at the scene lacked credibility.
“It’s not true that Mkhwanazi woke up at 2am just to see the success of an operation… [he] is being untruthful,” Sello said.
Mkhwanazi rejected this assertion, maintaining that the operation was not conducted by the EMPD.
“It was not an EMPD operation. It could’ve been an EMPD operation, but I wasn’t informed,” Mkhwanazi said.
Commission chairperson Justice Madlanga expressed concern over Mkhwanazi’s firm denial of EMPD involvement, highlighting inconsistencies in his testimony.
Baloyi went further, accusing Mkhwanazi of deliberately withholding information.
“Mkhwanazi is being untruthful and knew who was at the operation; that’s why he doesn’t mention anybody at the scene,” Baloyi said.
- Julius Mkhwanazi, a suspended senior EMPD official, testified at the Madlanga commission about alleged corruption linked to a cigarette trafficking case involving extortion of shop owners.
- Mkhwanazi admitted a close relationship with informer Jaco Hannekom, investing in Hannekom's vehicle business during the Covid-19 pandemic, but denied knowledge of any authority for illicit goods confiscation.
- He recounted being called at 2am about a cigarette truck bust, rushing to the scene involving EMPD, SAPS, and private security, but claimed he did not know if EMPD was involved beforehand.
- Concerns were raised over the lack of official documentation of the operation and officers failing to file reports, with commissioners questioning Mkhwanazi’s unclear role and memory of key details at the crime scene.
- Mkhwanazi was accused by commissioners of being untruthful and withholding information, particularly about EMPD's involvement and personnel present during the operation, while he insisted the operation was not officially an EMPD action.
"Hannekom was an informer, and we had a close relationship,"
He admitted that he had attempted to enter into business with Hannekom, explaining that Hannekom sold vehicles sourced through Facebook.
"
However,
"It was around 2am, and I rushed to the scene. When I arrived, multiple agencies, including the EMPD, the
Despite this, he insisted he had no prior knowledge of EMPD’s involvement in the operation.
"I didn’t know if the EMPD was involved in the operation. I just woke up and rushed to the scene," he said.
When Sello asked why he jumped and did not question Hannekom,
"I knew it would be a successful operation and I wanted it to be ours," he added.
However, commissioners questioned why a senior official would arrive at a crime scene at 2am without clarity on who was involved or what his role would be, especially given that any recovered evidence would need to be formally recorded.
Commissioner Baloyi challenged
"
"I was angry that I was called after the scene was concluded," he said.
He further stated that he later followed up by contacting Hannekom to confirm whether the scene had been properly recorded.
Tensions escalated when
Initially unable to recall,
Commissioners expressed scepticism over his inability to recall key details, particularly given the gravity of the incident.
Adv Sello directly challenged
"It’s not true that
"It was not an EMPD operation. It could’ve been an EMPD operation, but I wasn’t informed,"
Commission chairperson Justice
Baloyi went further, accusing
"
