Major-General Feroz Khan’s camp wants the Madlanga Commission to consider referring uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party Member of Parliament (MP), Vusi Shongwe and Jacob Zuma’s assistant, Londiwe Xulu, for possible prosecution.
The request follows allegations that Shongwe and Xulu gave misleading evidence about a March meeting and a video call involving the former Crime Intelligence officer.
READ: MK Party’s Shongwe spills beans on Khan call and R10m offer
Businessman Imraan Vally, who arranged the meeting, was over the weekend expected to submit recordings, CCTV footage and a detailed affidavit challenging their accounts.
Vally presents the evidence as proof that Shongwe turned a cordial attempt to resolve his differences with Khan into allegations of intimidation and attempted bribery.
“Where it is found that Shongwe and Xulu have misled this commission on oath, their conduct should be referred to the NPA [National Prosecuting Authority] for possible prosecution,” Vally said.
Vally said Shongwe willingly joined a video call with Khan, apologised for statements he had made and then sought damaging information about senior political figures including President Cyril Ramaphosa, as well as KZN Police Commissioner, Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
Shongwe previously told the commission that he refused the call, felt intimidated and only cooperated because he wanted to leave the Durban premises safely.
Two versions of one meeting
The meeting took place at DRK Tactical’s Morningside offices on March 8 and involved Vally, Shongwe, Xulu and businessman Yusuf Kajee.
Shongwe testified that Kajee repeatedly attempted to connect him with Khan despite his refusal and eventually turned the telephone towards him when Khan answered.
“I refused, and I informed them that I did not wish to take the call,” Shongwe told the commission.
Vally rejected that account.
“Before Kajee placed the call, Shongwe’s explicit consent was sought and given by him,” his affidavit states.
READ MORE: MK Party’s Shongwe spills beans on Khan call and R10m offer
“Nobody forced Shongwe to take the call, disregarded a refusal, threatened him, or arranged a surprise call to Khan.”
Vally claimed Shongwe greeted Khan as “my commander”, apologised for his earlier statements and asked to meet him in Sandton.
He alleged that Shongwe explained that his attack on Khan was unintentional because he had intended to target businessman Paul O’Sullivan and another senior police officer.
Vally further alleged that Shongwe asked Khan to provide “dirt” on Ramaphosa and senior police officers, including Mkhwanazi.
He said Khan refused to provide the requested information but agreed to meet Shongwe at a venue convenient to him.
Bribery allegations under attack
Shongwe previously alleged that he was offered a Checkers security contract worth R2.2-million monthly, R10-million in cash and access to bulletproof BMW vehicles.
He also alleged that the men offered to make his telephone “unhackable”, change the location displayed by the device and work on its SIM card.
Vally described those claims as “flagrant fictional allegations”.
He said the BMWs were DRK Tactical security vehicles and that Kajee merely discussed close-protection services after Shongwe complained about the dangers surrounding his work.
“No money was ever offered or handed over,” Vally said.
READ MORE: MKP’s Baloyi, Shongwe, Mavundla for mayors
“Shongwe has not produced a single document, message, recording, witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate any of his allegations.”
Vally argued that Shongwe kept the allegations “in reserve” and publicised them when they could advance his political interests before the municipal elections.
However, Shongwe has maintained that he pretended to accept the offers because he feared that rejecting them could place him in danger.
“In the meeting I did agree because I was very scared,” Shongwe said during a later SMWX interview.
He said he “had to play along” and feared he “might not make it to the airport”.
Vally said Shongwe had not mentioned fearing for his life during his earlier appearances before Parliament or the commission.
Recordings challenge Xulu’s evidence
Vally also relied on two telephone conversations he recorded with Xulu on March 17 and May 30.
The calls were not recordings of the disputed meeting. Vally said they recorded later discussions about what happened and what Xulu knew.
Xulu said in her sworn statement that she did not know the purpose of the meeting, could not hear the video call and did not know Khan was participating.
Vally said the recordings contradicted that account.
He alleged that Xulu knew why Shongwe had been summoned, knew Khan was on the video call and later discussed the encounter with him.
“Xulu knew who we were calling,” Vally said.
“She was in the same boardroom, very close to Shongwe and Kajee, and she was told of the purpose of the meeting.”
READ MORE: ‘Shongwe called me a criminal’ — Cameron fires back
Vally also challenged Xulu’s claim that she contacted Shongwe only once on Zuma’s instructions, pointing to other passages where she described later communications.
He said Zuma wanted the meeting because he regarded Khan and Shongwe “like sons” and wanted to prevent their disagreement from escalating.
Vally has asked the commission to place the recordings and CCTV footage before Shongwe and Xulu and require them to explain the disputed versions.
“I make this affidavit so that the commission has the true account of the meeting and so that Shongwe and Xulu can answer it,” he said.
Shongwe and Xulu did not respond to messages sent on Monday.
This is a developing story.
- Major-General Feroz Khan’s camp has requested the Madlanga Commission consider referring MK Party MP Vusi Shongwe and Jacob Zuma’s assistant Londiwe Xulu for possible prosecution over allegations of giving misleading evidence about a March meeting and video call with Khan.
- Businessman Imraan Vally submitted recordings, CCTV footage, and an affidavit challenging Shongwe and Xulu’s versions of events, claiming Shongwe willingly participated in the call, apologized to Khan, and sought damaging information on political figures.
- Shongwe alleged he was offered a R2.2-million monthly security contract, R10-million in cash, bulletproof BMW vehicles, and phone security modifications, but Vally described these bribery claims as false and unsubstantiated.
- Vally provided two telephone conversations with Xulu, recorded after the disputed meeting, to contradict her sworn statement that she was unaware of the meeting’s purpose and Khan’s involvement.
- Vally urged the commission to review the recordings and CCTV footage and require Shongwe and Xulu to explain their conflicting accounts; both have not responded to requests for comment.
Major-General Feroz Khan’s camp wants the Madlanga Commission to consider referring uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party Member of Parliament (MP), Vusi Shongwe and Jacob Zuma’s assistant, Londiwe Xulu, for possible prosecution.
The request follows allegations that Shongwe and Xulu gave misleading evidence about a March meeting and a video call involving the former Crime Intelligence officer.
READ: MK Party's Shongwe spills beans on Khan call and R10m offer
Businessman Imraan Vally, who arranged the meeting, was over the weekend expected to submit recordings, CCTV footage and a detailed affidavit challenging their accounts.
Vally presents the evidence as proof that Shongwe turned a cordial attempt to resolve his differences with Khan into allegations of intimidation and attempted bribery.
“Where it is found that Shongwe and Xulu have misled this commission on oath, their conduct should be referred to the NPA [National Prosecuting Authority] for possible prosecution,” Vally said.
Vally said Shongwe willingly joined a video call with Khan, apologised for statements he had made and then sought damaging information about senior political figures including President Cyril Ramaphosa, as well as KZN Police Commissioner, Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
Shongwe previously told the commission that he refused the call, felt intimidated and only cooperated because he wanted to leave the Durban premises safely.
The meeting took place at DRK Tactical’s Morningside offices on March 8 and involved Vally, Shongwe, Xulu and businessman Yusuf Kajee.
Shongwe testified that Kajee repeatedly attempted to connect him with Khan despite his refusal and eventually turned the telephone towards him when Khan answered.
“I refused, and I informed them that I did not wish to take the call,” Shongwe told the commission.
Vally rejected that account.
“Before Kajee placed the call, Shongwe’s explicit consent was sought and given by him,” his affidavit states.
READ MORE: MK Party's Shongwe spills beans on Khan call and R10m offer
“Nobody forced Shongwe to take the call, disregarded a refusal, threatened him, or arranged a surprise call to Khan.”
Vally claimed Shongwe greeted Khan as “my commander”, apologised for his earlier statements and asked to meet him in Sandton.
He alleged that Shongwe explained that his attack on Khan was unintentional because he had intended to target businessman Paul O’Sullivan and another senior police officer.
Vally further alleged that Shongwe asked Khan to provide “dirt” on Ramaphosa and senior police officers, including Mkhwanazi.
He said Khan refused to provide the requested information but agreed to meet Shongwe at a venue convenient to him.
Shongwe previously alleged that he was offered a Checkers security contract worth R2.2-million monthly, R10-million in cash and access to bulletproof BMW vehicles.
He also alleged that the men offered to make his telephone “unhackable”, change the location displayed by the device and work on its SIM card.
Vally described those claims as “flagrant fictional allegations”.
He said the BMWs were DRK Tactical security vehicles and that Kajee merely discussed close-protection services after Shongwe complained about the dangers surrounding his work.
“No money was ever offered or handed over,” Vally said.
READ MORE: MKP’s Baloyi, Shongwe, Mavundla for mayors
“Shongwe has not produced a single document, message, recording, witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate any of his allegations.”
Vally argued that Shongwe kept the allegations “in reserve” and publicised them when they could advance his political interests before the municipal elections.
However, Shongwe has maintained that he pretended to accept the offers because he feared that rejecting them could place him in danger.
“In the meeting I did agree because I was very scared,” Shongwe said during a later SMWX interview.
He said he “had to play along” and feared he “might not make it to the airport”.
Vally said Shongwe had not mentioned fearing for his life during his earlier appearances before Parliament or the commission.
Vally also relied on two telephone conversations he recorded with Xulu on March 17 and May 30.
The calls were not recordings of the disputed meeting. Vally said they recorded later discussions about what happened and what Xulu knew.
Xulu said in her sworn statement that she did not know the purpose of the meeting, could not hear the video call and did not know Khan was participating.
Vally said the recordings contradicted that account.
He alleged that Xulu knew why Shongwe had been summoned, knew Khan was on the video call and later discussed the encounter with him.
“Xulu knew who we were calling,” Vally said.
“She was in the same boardroom, very close to Shongwe and Kajee, and she was told of the purpose of the meeting.”
READ MORE: ‘Shongwe called me a criminal’ — Cameron fires back
Vally also challenged Xulu’s claim that she contacted Shongwe only once on Zuma’s instructions, pointing to other passages where she described later communications.
He said Zuma wanted the meeting because he regarded Khan and Shongwe “like sons” and wanted to prevent their disagreement from escalating.
Vally has asked the commission to place the recordings and CCTV footage before Shongwe and Xulu and require them to explain the disputed versions.
“I make this affidavit so that the commission has the true account of the meeting and so that Shongwe and Xulu can answer it,” he said.
Shongwe and Xulu did not respond to messages sent on Monday.
This is a developing story.
