The state’s case against Brigadier Dineo Mokwele has opened a new line of scrutiny into how a newly appointed crime intelligence officer was allegedly processed for security clearance through a system prosecutors say treated her like a service provider to the police.
Mokwele, who was appointed section head: technical services unit in crime intelligence, is accused alongside crime intelligence head Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo and other senior police officers in a case arising from her appointment to the post.
Processed ‘as if a service provider’
The state alleges that Mokwele’s security-clearance application “was not done via e-Vetting but via the iNkwazi system” and that she was processed “as if” she were “a service provider” to the South African Police Service (SAPS).
That allegation raises questions because the appointment was located inside crime intelligence, rather than in an ordinary administrative environment. The documents do not spell out the operational sensitivity of the post, but the division’s role gives the vetting issue greater institutional weight.
The state’s case is that Mokwele and her co-accused misrepresented key facts during the recruitment and appointment process. It alleges that her application and CV were not properly considered and that she did not meet the inherent requirements of the advertised post. Furthermore, it’s alleged that the selection process was unfair, and that the panel’s recommendation was biased.
State alleges SAPS prejudice
In the charge sheet, the state says SAPS and its employees were prejudiced after they “received and processed” Mokwele’s application, believed her application and CV were “true and correct”, approved her conditional appointment, and received and reviewed her “top-secret security clearance application”.
It further alleges that SAPS approved and issued her with top-secret security clearance and paid her salary from November 2024.
This makes security clearance one of the elements of the alleged prejudice. The state is not only questioning whether Mokwele was suitable for the job but also how she was cleared before taking up a post in crime intelligence.
Alllegation ‘misunderstands state’s own vetting infrastructure’
Mokwele’s lawyers reject the allegation and argue that the state is attempting to criminalise a process controlled by SAPS itself.
In representations to the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), her legal team says the allegation “misunderstands the state’s own vetting infrastructure” and ignores how external applicants are processed.
They say Mokwele submitted an online application on the SAPS e-Vetting system for top-secret security clearance.
Her lawyers say the use of iNkwazi, if it happened, was a practical administrative step caused by limitations in the state’s systems. They say e-vetting could process people linked to existing Persal numbers, while external candidates would not yet have Persal numbers.
The defence says this means an external candidate could not be blamed for the internal route SAPS officials chose.
“Mokwele was merely an applicant for employment,” her lawyers say. “She was not a system administrator, vetting officer or custodian of state vetting systems.”
They add that she “had no involvement whatsoever in determining which platform would be utilised for purposes of the vetting process”.
The lawyers say it is “speculative” to suggest that Mokwele manipulated or unlawfully exploited the state’s internal vetting systems.
They argue that the process was “facilitated, administered, and controlled entirely by the State itself”.
Does SAPS have clear process for vetting external applicants?
The dispute may force scrutiny of whether SAPS had a clear and auditable process for vetting external applicants appointed to senior posts in crime intelligence. That issue is not settled in the documents, but it flows from the clash between the state’s allegation and Mokwele’s explanation.
It may also place attention on whether the difference between e-Vetting and iNkwazi was properly understood by the officials involved in recruitment, human resources, vetting and final approval. The documents do not establish who knew what at the time, but they show that the route used for clearance has become contested.
Another unresolved question is whether any departure from the ordinary clearance route was authorised, documented and justified.
The state alleges that e-Vetting was not used in the manner it says should have applied. Mokwele’s lawyers say any use of iNkwazi was an internal SAPS administrative choice.
If the state is correct, the vetting route could form part of a wider pattern of irregular handling in the appointment. If Mokwele is correct, the prosecution is blaming an applicant for decisions made by police officials who controlled the vetting process.
Mokwele’s appointment is already under scrutiny because the state alleges her application was submitted and received a day after the closing date, that some information relating to her managerial experience was incorrect, and that the assessment exercises and evaluation were not fair.
Her lawyers deny wrongdoing and say she was qualified, properly assessed and appointed through a process run by SAPS.
The matter may now test more than Mokwele’s personal suitability. It may also test whether SAPS can explain how senior external appointments are verified, cleared and documented before candidates enter Crime Intelligence.
Read More: Tensions flare as Khumalo confronts IDAC over alleged arrest move
- The state’s case against Brigadier Dineo Mokwele has opened a new line of scrutiny into how a newly appointed crime intelligence officer was allegedly processed for security clearance through a system prosecutors say treated her like a service provider to the police.
- Mokwele, who was appointed section head: technical services unit in crime intelligence, is accused alongside crime intelligence head Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo and other senior police officers in a case arising from her appointment to the post.
- Processed ‘as if a service provider’ The state alleges that Mokwele’s security-clearance application “was not done via e-Vetting but via the iNkwazi system” and that she was processed “as if” she were “a service provider” to the South African Police Service (SAPS).
- That allegation raises questions because the appointment was located inside crime intelligence, rather than in an ordinary administrative environment.
- The documents do not spell out the operational sensitivity of the post, but the division’s role gives the vetting issue greater institutional weight.
Mokwele, who was appointed section head: technical services unit in crime intelligence, is accused alongside crime intelligence head Lieutenant-General Dumisani
In the charge sheet, the state says SAPS and its employees were prejudiced after they “received and processed” Mokwele’s application, believed her application and CV were “true and correct”, approved her conditional appointment, and received and reviewed her “top-secret security clearance application”.
It further alleges that SAPS approved and issued her with top-secret security clearance and paid her salary from
Mokwele’s lawyers reject the allegation and argue that the state is attempting to criminalise a process controlled by SAPS itself.
In representations to the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), her legal team says the allegation “misunderstands the state’s own vetting infrastructure” and ignores how external applicants are processed.
Her lawyers say the use of iNkwazi, if it happened, was a practical administrative step caused by limitations in the state's systems.
“Mokwele was merely an applicant for employment,” her lawyers say. “
It may also place attention on whether the difference between e-
If the state is correct, the vetting route could form part of a wider pattern of irregular handling in the appointment. If Mokwele is correct, the prosecution is blaming an applicant for decisions made by police officials who controlled the vetting process.
Mokwele’s appointment is already under scrutiny because the state alleges her application was submitted and received a day after the closing date, that some information relating to her managerial experience was incorrect, and that the assessment exercises and evaluation were not fair.
Her lawyers deny wrongdoing and say she was qualified, properly assessed and appointed through a process run by SAPS.
Read More: Tensions flare as
