Commissioners grill SAPS Brigadier Campbell Nyuswa before the Madlanga Commission

[00:00:00]because now I would be looking looked at opposing the decision by my senior.

[00:00:09]So, I'll go with the the the decision by them.

[00:00:17]>> If you wanted to continue this, I'll let you.

[00:00:20]All right.

[00:00:21]But again, it's it's about the the now you're at the crime scene. This is on the 20th on the 20th on the 8th of November here at the crime scene. You you say in paragraph 45, "I must state that when I observed the scene, I was shocked that safe that the safe had been breached, but more than that, I was skeptical that the safe had been breached by grinding the door."

[00:00:51]What What was your there and then on the scene as you looked at it and you're skeptical about what you're seeing?

[00:01:00]What What did you think would have happened here?

[00:01:04]>> This It was unbelievable. If you look at the thickness of the door.

[00:01:10]>> Yes.

[00:01:13]>> And although I'm not an expert, the mechanism of the safe itself after you know that it cannot be, how did it happen?

[00:01:28]Maybe it was someone who was working with the safes, I don't know, but I was really shocked.

[00:01:36]>> Okay. Did you and I accept that you're not an expert and and hopefully we'll get an expert who can comment on it.

[00:01:44]But you had been told previously that the door cannot be breached. It It and and it it necessarily would have to be opened with a key, right?

[00:01:56]Did it cross your mind that the a key would have been used to open the door when you were there and then on the scene?

[00:02:04]Did it cross your mind without without suggesting who as you stood there without thinking so-and-so must have opened uh looks like may have opened the door because it cannot be breached safe.

[00:02:19]>> it was hard for me to to think in that line, Commissioner, because I knew the safe key was in Durban, far away from from Potchefstroom.

[00:02:33]>> So, are you saying you you discounted that the key could have been used?

[00:02:38]>> Hence, I'm saying the only people that can tell us are the experts.

[00:02:44]>> Well, we we know this key was going in and out of General Sinona's office. We know that fact.

[00:02:52]The first time is the 23rd of June.

[00:02:54]We've had from other evidence that Mbanga said kept taking it in and out.

[00:02:59]So, we know that it it didn't sit tight in in in Durban with with General Sinona.

[00:03:06]Um and so, I'm asking you the question with that context that we know on the 23rd it left Durban and went to Potchefstroom, was used in Potchefstroom. So, it it couldn't be that if you are told if you had been told by the landlord that this door can only be breached can only be opened with a key, it's not capable of being breached that as you stood there you did not entertain that possibility that someone of our officers may well have opened it if if you your view or the the what you had accepted that it it was not breachable.

[00:03:51]>> Tough one again, Commissioner.

[00:03:54]The >> I I ask you this question because I want to to to to suggest for your comment >> Yes, ma'am.

[00:04:05]>> that you may not have mentioned to the investigators in your statement or even there at the scene.

[00:04:14]You may not have mentioned this conversation with the with the landlord about the door being unbreachable because you were uncomfortable about the consequences of mentioning it.

[00:04:26]Consequences as in the implication of it. Because if if there and then on the spot, and I think you would have been aware of that, that if there and then on the spot you said, "But the landlord said this door is not breachable and can only be opened by a key."

[00:04:44]>> Yeah.

[00:04:44]>> You were aware of the implications of what you are saying, that you are saying one of your colleagues including General Nonna Masipa had something to do with the opening. Do you understand what I'm saying?

[00:04:56]>> Yeah, but I can't say that, uh, Commissioner.

[00:04:59]>> Yes.

[00:05:00]>> I can't.

[00:05:01]>> Well, what do you mean you can't say that? You you you >> I can't say, uh, yes, the location of the safe and the way things happen, I do suspect that someone within us >> Yes.

[00:05:19]>> leaked the information.

[00:05:22]>> Leaked the information about the drugs being there.

[00:05:26]>> Yes. I say this because, as I said earlier on, there are two safes.

[00:05:33]How the suspect will know this is the one.

[00:05:37]>> Yeah.

[00:05:42]Well, you're not the first one to say it. I think I think even General Nonna, uh, when he testified, he did say that someone, because it was widely known, according to him, members knew that there were there was this suspected cocaine in in the safe there, because it wasn't it didn't become a secret. People knew about it.

[00:06:06]So, I think the the the there's no surprise about someone knew and someone shared the information.

[00:06:15]The the question really is do any of your members Did any of your members have anything to do with the breach itself?

[00:06:27]Um especially considering you're saying that it could only be opened with a key.

[00:06:35]>> That's been disputed.

[00:06:36]>> the suggestion there, maybe let me complete my thought, is it may well be that um the door was in fact opened. You shouldn't worry about it being staged.

[00:06:46]And my reading of that statement of yours is that the door was opened and then the the grinding is the staged part, because your landlord had told you this can only be opened with a key. So, where in your statement you say you thought this must be this looks like it may well have been staged, the implication of that statement is someone used a key to open it.

[00:07:13]>> At least if I have the report by the expert, then I can confirm and say yes.

[00:07:21]>> Yes.

[00:07:21]>> But with me not having it, I'm unable.

[00:07:26]>> Yes. I know you can't confirm it as a fact, but what I'm trying to get from you is do you appreciate and understand that when you say it looked like it was staged, remember we know it was there there was grind was Yeah, I I I have to be careful of my English. Is it ground or grinded?

[00:07:48]>> [laughter] >> Yes, one of those.

[00:07:53]Um so, when you say you thought it looks like it may have been staged. I'm trying to remember that. I I don't want to put words in your in your mouth.

[00:08:03]Look at the idea because this is quite a serious thing. So, I wouldn't want it to be attributed to you unfairly if that's not what you were saying. You say, "I would have expected the IPCA investigators to to have investigated the possibility that the scene was staged and obtain an expert opinion on whether the cuts we observed could have indeed resulted the safe in the safe being breached." So, with that statement, it seems your my understanding of you saying that is you do not discount you did not discount and you do not discount that what it looked like is not in fact what happened, may not be what happened.

[00:08:47]Someone may well have opened the safe.

[00:08:50]>> Yeah.

[00:08:51]>> Is that a fair Is that a fair representation?

[00:08:54]>> Yes.

[00:08:55]>> Okay. All right, thank you.

[00:08:57]>> Thank you.

[00:08:58]>> Can you just confirm this uh I don't want you to speculate. I want you to just say what I observed, this is what it looked like to me.

[00:09:09]So, and because that's your observation, it may well be wrong.

[00:09:14]It may well be inconsistent with what actually happened.

[00:09:19]But from your observation, did it look like the door was opened because there was grinding that resulted in the door being opened? Just your observation because you are an investigator of many years, 38 years as a policeman.

[00:09:37]Just looking at it, what did it look like to you?

[00:09:45]>> Commissioner, I could not believe what I saw there.

[00:09:51]>> Can you answer it in the positive, not in the negative, please?

[00:09:56]>> No, I What I saw, I could not believe it and uh But And I don't have anything to back me up, I'm unable to confirm with you, Commissioner.

[00:10:09]>> Yes, but you're saying you can't back it up because you don't have an expert report.

[00:10:13]>> Yes. I don't know, maybe the investigators do have it because in the DPCI also, we work on the need-to-know basis.

[00:10:21]>> Brigadier, in the interest of time, just focus only on what you observed.

[00:10:26]>> Okay.

[00:10:27]>> Not what the experts would say if they had the opportunity to give evidence.

[00:10:33]I mean, we we've heard stories of people coming in here and say, I mean, looking at that chair, it looks to me like somebody used a knife to cut it. That's not normal wear and tear. Now, you're making an observation as a human being. That's the sort of information I'm expecting from you to say, when I got there and I saw this door, this was my observation.

[00:10:58]>> But also, Brigadier, you don't comment as a normal human being that I am.

[00:11:05]Uh you are an experienced detective, uh whose job is to interrogate things that I see at face value when when I arrive and I see things. You You have better insight from your training and experience. So, you're being asked to comment with that in mind, that you're an experienced and and quite seriously experienced detective.

[00:11:35]Um when you see that scene, what do you think? I know you say you're skeptical, but Commissioner Khumalo is asking you to speak more positively. What [snorts] do you think when you get there when you look at that scene?

[00:11:50]>> Maybe a bit of both.

[00:11:53]>> Ex- Explain.

[00:11:58]>> The staging might might might have been there. Also, if the mechanical if they had the expert to breach the the locking mechanical could have also be positive that they were able to open, but to me, I I I still don't believe.

[00:12:19]I I I I'm unable to answer this question.

[00:12:24]Commissioners, if you may pardon me on this.

[00:12:27]>> Okay.

[00:12:29]>> I notice that you are reluctant to deal with the issue of the key because you are scared that if you respond to Commissioner Baloyi's question, it will create the impression that General Senona either opened the safe or gave somebody the key to open the safe.

[00:12:46]But there's another possibility here.

[00:12:49]With that key going up and down from Durban to Port Shepstone, it's possible that a junior officer could have created another duplicate.

[00:12:59]And that other duplicate could have been used.

[00:13:02]So, don't discount the possibility that somebody actually did open the safe and the grinding happened as you suspect simply to stage the scene.

[00:13:17]Because you seem to be reluctant to associate General Senona >> No, I'm not I'm not reluctant. It's just that if you don't have evidence, I can't say something.

[00:13:31]And say I don't want to say it to you.

[00:13:36]I'm saying but what I saw and what I know from the landlord I was bit hesitant as to what exactly transpired.

[00:13:48]>> Thank you.

[00:13:50]>> Thank you. Um Brigadier just to say that you must have entertained the possibility that the scene was staged then and there when you were at the scene because you can't have it both ways. You couldn't have relied on the safe being impenetrable in order to suggest it as the place where the drugs should be kept because you considered it to be that safe, but then when it is breached and you see it being breached um without the key, not for a second think that this this stage this the scene is staged. You must have it must have crossed your mind.

[00:14:30]Correct?

[00:14:32]>> I hear.

[00:14:33]Commissioner >> And there's hearing and then there's saying if I'm correct or not.

[00:14:39]>> Commissioners, please pardon me on this one.

[00:14:44]>> Okay.

[00:14:47]Here, do you have an idea where the door is today?

[00:14:50]>> Sorry, Commissioner.

[00:14:51]>> The door, the safe door. Do you have an whether it has been kept because the investigation is still ongoing or it's been disposed of?

[00:15:07]>> You know, uh I don't know exactly.

[00:15:13]I was so distanced from this investigation.

[00:15:18]I really don't know what happened to the door.

[00:15:23]Can I say that I I have the the the the discomfort that on something so serious where you must appreciate because of the way in which it played and your role in the way it played out that you appreciate you must appreciate that uh you would be one of the people that uh are consi- maybe considered suspects um as in what was his role? Questions being asked about your own involvement in this.

[00:16:01]And the concern is notwithstanding that you you seem to have played an arm's length uh role or assumed an arm's length role to how things played out even after the the theft that you don't know what happened um and there's a lot of I don't I don't know. I don't know. And when you're asked the question about did you make Why did you not mention your suspicion or your skepticism in the investigation? You did not mention it.

[00:16:39]Um it it creates it and it it is quiet about it. That on something so serious, someone so senior um is content is is testifying to say well, I I you know, once this stuff was stolen, I left it to others and had nothing more to do with it.

[00:16:57]>> Yes, I do understand concern.

[00:16:59]>> You understand that concern.

[00:17:00]>> Yes, I do understand.

[00:17:02]>> Thank you.

[00:17:04]>> But I was not involved.

[00:17:20]>> My co-commissioners and indeed uh Mr. Segals Ngube have have touched on this issue.

[00:17:26]You were of the view that uh or rather you you were skeptical. I think that's the word you used.

[00:17:32]And and thought that uh the this was staged. The break part of the break-in was staged.

[00:17:39]Because uh the the land the leso, I prefer the leso to landlord.

[00:17:47]Because the leso had said uh the safe could not be breached without a without a key.

[00:17:54]Um Now, you you have that uh skepticism if not suspicion.

[00:18:01]Were you afraid of uh General Senona that you were not direct and voiced your your suspicion?

[00:18:10]And and uh scared of him because you knew that uh the keys except for the times that someone else would take them for a while, the keys were otherwise always with him. Were you scared of him to voice your suspicion?

[00:18:28]Or for not voicing your suspicion?

[00:18:34]>> Commissioners, it was very difficult for me.

[00:18:36]>> Were you scared of him?

[00:18:40]>> If I say this, then he will people will say I'm suspecting someone, then I'm my life is in danger. Where do I where do I put myself as a >> So, your mind uh I I'm not sure what to make of that. So, uh did the thought ever cross your mind or the thought never cross your mind?

[00:19:07]I'm not saying I'm not saying you suspected him.

[00:19:13]There's a difference between uh uh suspecting him and merely saying But, the owner or uh the owner said, "This cannot be preached without a key."

[00:19:28]>> Yeah.

[00:19:28]>> I mean, uh also bear in mind that it's not as if uh 100% of the time the key was always with General Suna. It would be with other people and uh apparently for fairly long periods of time. In this uh For example, if you go there to properly bag exhibits, that is place them in bags, you're going to be there for a while.

[00:19:56]And if you go there to take samples, maybe it won't be as long as when you go there to bag the to bag the exhibits.

[00:20:06]But, still there were times when other people would have the the keys for for some time.

[00:20:14]So, it would not necessarily be that you are suspecting General Suna. Do Do you get what I mean?

[00:20:21]>> I do understand your concern.

[00:20:22]>> So, so your your point about you know, if you were to raise the suspicion, you would automatically be making General Suna a suspect is not necessarily true.

[00:20:40]So, that takes me back again to my question.

[00:20:44]Was your failure to mention your self suspicion or skepticism because of uh your fear of General Suna purely because he also handled the key?

[00:21:07]That does not automatically translate to him being the suspect. No.

[00:21:13]But was it because you feared him?

[00:21:16]Because of your knowledge of the fact that he kept the key.

[00:21:22]>> I think commissioners I should have mentioned this.

[00:21:29]>> We know that. We know you didn't and >> Yes, I didn't.

[00:21:32]>> and perhaps you should have, but I'm I'm I'm interested to know what it is that made you not to mention it.

[00:21:44]>> I said to the commissioners that when I got there from what I've been told and what I now I see I didn't know whether I had the right information or not.

[00:22:05]>> What did you not know exactly?

[00:22:07]That is what information might possibly not have been right information.

[00:22:13]Is it the the the Lesotho's information?

[00:22:17]>> Information that the safe could not be accessed without >> So you you started doubting that.

[00:22:22]>> Doubting.

[00:22:23]Doubting.

[00:22:25]>> Why are you mentioning that so late in the day?

[00:22:29]>> No, but I I think I said that earlier on that even I think it's Commissioner Khumalo he asked me whether where I was. I did mention that.

[00:22:38]>> Oh, okay. Okay. All right.

[00:22:40]All right. Um Are you still on this uh >> I'm going to move to the next topic, chair. So if you want to continue, you may.

[00:22:51]>> Okay. Will you be touching on the question of whose instruction it was for the exhibits to be taken to Port Shepstone.

[00:23:03]Well, if you are not, I will ask questions.

[00:23:05]>> You may you may ask.

[00:23:06]>> Yes.

[00:23:08]Uh I don't quite see what I'm going to engage you on in your latest consolidated statement that you uh led through.

[00:23:23]But in your 20-page statement, 24, I'm sorry, in your 24-page statement, you you seem to lay some emphasis emphasis on this point. I will take you to paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of that statement.

[00:23:45]There you deny what uh Colonel Prinsloo says, which is that uh you instructed him um regarding getting the storage facility in Port Shepstone ready for the exhibits.

[00:24:07]Uh you say that it was not your instruction and that it was uh General Sikhona's instruction. And you make the point in those two paragraphs that all that you did was to make a suggestion to General Sikhona that the exhibits be taken to Port Shepstone.

[00:24:30]And that it was then General Sikhona's instruction that the exhibits indeed be taken there. Do you remember saying so in the 24-page statement?

[00:24:40]>> Yes, yes, yes. I'm on it.

[00:24:42]>> Yes.

[00:24:43]Uh why why is it that you make that sort of emphasis?

[00:24:49]If you made the suggestion and then the instruction, even if it came from General Sikhona, it was based on your suggestion. Why do you uh emphasize the distinction between your mere suggestion and then the instruction coming from General Zondo?

[00:25:07]>> I said it because when I suggested he agreed and then it became instruction.

[00:25:20]Then I I was >> You merely you were merely the the bearer of an instruction from General Zondo.

[00:25:28]>> That's what I meant to say.

[00:25:29]>> Yes, but but but uh what's the what's the big difference between the two?

[00:25:37]You made the suggestion. But for But for your suggestion, there would have not been an instruction from General Zondo. So, what's what's the big distinction or difference that you are seeking to draw there?

[00:25:53]>> I said this because if he had an alternative I would have not continued to ask Priscilla to >> If who If who had an alternative?

[00:26:03]>> I mean, my general.

[00:26:06]If he had an alternative place.

[00:26:10]>> But now we we know that he either did not have or he did not give it or he didn't suggest any. So, it went by your sugges- everything went by or in accordance with your suggestion. So, what I'm trying to establish is why emphasize the distinction between you merely suggesting and then the instruction coming from the general.

[00:26:33]What was the big difference there?

[00:26:34]>> Okay.

[00:26:36]You know, commissioners, when I wrote this, I was writing on my own. When I consulted with the evidence leaders, they also picked up that then that is why they advised me to to write this statement, sir.

[00:26:51]>> Okay, let me just look paragraph 32 because in the consolidated statement you deal with it at paragraph 32. I just want to see the difference in substance. Yeah, I'm not suggesting that there isn't.

[00:27:12]Yeah, I see there that you say you made the suggestion and then General Sinona agreed and instructed you to instruct um Lieutenant Colonel Prinsloo to prepare the safe for the exhibits.

[00:27:27]This actually captures what I had in mind, which is where's the big difference because there you made a suggestion, there was an instruction, and you also instructed.

[00:27:38]So, in a sense, yeah, in in in a sense it actually captures the point I was making as to where exactly the big difference is and from paragraph 32 of the new statement, it seems there isn't really. Do you agree?

[00:27:52]>> I agree, Commissioner.

[00:27:54]>> Yeah.

[00:27:54]>> I'll be my use of English, not that I was pushing things away.

[00:28:00]>> I I don't think it's merely the use of English. In so many ways you say, "I deny uh Colonel Prinsloo's allegation that uh I instructed you." You even uh put instructing, which is the uh the participle there. You even put it in inverted commas. So, it's a conscious conscious use of language. I don't think it's a >> I I'm not my mistake here, Commissioner.

[00:28:34]>> All right. All right. Thank you. Yes, [snorts] Mr. Gcinumuzi.

[00:28:37]>> Thank you, Chair. Uh Brigadier, do you know