The trial within a trial in the murder case of Armand Swart heard further testimony from Captain Pimi Sekgobela on Friday, with the senior police officer conceding that there were instances where he was not fully in control of the arrests of accused Musa Kekana and Michael Pule Tau.
Kekana and Tau are among the co-accused of Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala. Kekana is seeking to have evidence obtained during his arrest ruled inadmissible as part of the ongoing legal proceedings.
The two men were arrested in Kew, Johannesburg, on 17 April 2024, several hours after Swart was killed in Vereeniging. During proceedings, defence advocate Annelene van den Heever subjected Sekgobela to lengthy cross-examination, with Judge Cassim Moosa at one point intervening to caution against creating an unnecessarily hostile courtroom atmosphere.
Captain Pimi Sekgobela Faces Questions Over Arrest Procedures
Captain Pimi Sekgobela remained under scrutiny as Van den Heever referred extensively to South African Police Service (SAPS) national protocols governing arrests, crime scene management and documentation. Court had previously adjourned to allow the defence to prepare arguments based on those procedures.
Sekgobela, who served as Tactical Response Team commander during the arrests, maintained that officers secured the scene where the accused were found with an unlicensed firearm. However, he acknowledged that one aspect of the prescribed procedure was not followed.
He admitted that the suspect was not removed from the scene immediately, despite this forming part of the standard protocol.
The court also revisited Kekana’s allegation that he was assaulted by police during his arrest. Sekgobela said officers documented the suspect’s condition after he allegedly started coughing up blood.
Van den Heever challenged that version, pointing out there was no official record reflecting the incident. Sekgobela explained that he had instructed another officer to call an ambulance using his state-issued cellphone.
“I am only realising now that I made a mistake, that it is not written in my diary but it is contained in my statement,” Sekgobela’s translator relayed.
The commander further accepted there had been shortcomings in controlling access to the scene. Van den Heever criticised the condition in which officers allegedly left the premises after conducting their search.
“Nothing was packed away as you’re supposed to do after you search a crime scene. Everything was dumped on the floor. Things were just moved like somebody took his arm and threw things out of the cupboards.
“Your evidence, sir, that you followed the law with precision, that you’re a commander that does things in the right way, is just not the truth,” Van den Heever shouted.
The defence also argued that the crime intelligence relied upon to make the warrantless arrests amounted to hearsay. Sekgobela declined to comment on that suggestion.
Captain Pimi Sekgobela Explains SAPS Documentation Of Charges
Captain Pimi Sekgobela was also questioned about records completed after the arrests. Van den Heever focused on entries in Bramley police station’s occurrence book and cell register, noting they referred only to charges relating to illegal possession of firearms and ammunition rather than murder.
Sekgobela explained that the suspects were initially detained in Bramley on the firearm-related charges before being transferred to Vereeniging, where the murder investigation was formally registered.
[Husband Of Mapisa-Nqakula Accuser Testifies In R4.5 Million Corruption Trial]
“In Bramley, they did not kill anyone. There is no way we are suspecting them of committing a case of murder in Bramley. The murder is a charge under Vereeniging,” the commander’s interpreter relayed.
The explanation prompted further exchanges between the defence and the bench. Judge Moosa repeatedly sought confirmation from Van den Heever on whether she accepted Sekgobela’s explanation before she eventually agreed.
“Yes, we are in agreement. What more can I say to the court than the record reflects what he said?” said Van den Heever.
Captain Pimi Sekgobela Proceedings See Judge Caution Defence Counsel
Captain Pimi Sekgobela’s evidence concluded with Judge Moosa addressing Van den Heever’s conduct in court. Following the adjournment, the judge expressed concern about her interactions during the proceedings.
“I am just raising this concern to you that I found your conduct displayed before the short adjournment to be highly unacceptable.
“I am now inviting you, moving forward, to please desist in this type of conduct when the court engages you, so that we can move on, and an unnecessary atmosphere is not being created during the course of these proceedings,” said Moosa.
Before the judge completed his remarks, Van den Heever disputed his characterisation of her conduct.
“What the lordship says is just not correct in so far as I dismissed or didn’t hear what the witness said.
“It is quite clear, my lord, I heard what the witness said. Again, my lord, there is a transcript, but I heard what your lordship said. May I please move on,” she requested.
Judge Moosa again asked whether she accepted the court’s caution. After some hesitation, she replied:
SEE TODAY'S TOP HEADLINES ACROSS LEADING PUBLICATIONS
“My lord, I – I… as the court pleases,” Van den Heever conceded.
The trial will continue with Colonel Thomas Tsotsetsi, formerly attached to the Gauteng Tactical Response Team, expected to testify about his involvement in the arrests.
