A Tactical Response Team (TRT) captain clashed with defence counsel in the Johannesburg High Court on Wednesday, warning the lawyer not to interrupt him while he was giving evidence.
“If I start doing that, it won’t be nice.”
The exchange took place during day eight of the trial-within-a-trial involving alleged underworld figure Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala and four co-accused.
TRT Captain Sekgobela is facing extensive cross-examination as the defence challenges the origin of the intelligence that led police to a property in Kew, where accused number one, Musa Kekana, was arrested.
The trial within a trial will determine whether evidence obtained following Kekana’s arrest on April 17, 2024, is admissible.
Sekgobela, who began testifying on Monday, has outlined the events leading to Kekana’s arrest, which occurred hours after the fatal shooting of Vereeniging engineer Armand Swart.
Kekana’s legal team argues that his arrest was unlawful, that his constitutional rights were not explained to him, and that police conducted subsequent searches without a warrant.
The State is seeking to prove that statements and other evidence obtained during and after Kekana’s arrest should be admitted.
Matlala and his four co-accused face 25 charges, including attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, fraud, money laundering, and the illegal possession of prohibited firearms and ammunition.
The charges relate to the alleged attempted murders of businessman Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni and five others, media personality Tebogo Thobejane and three others, and musician DJ Vettys and two others.
Matlala is on trial alongside alleged gunmen Musa Kekana and Mabusela, Mabusela’s wife Tsakani, and Nzama.
Accused Musa Kekana and Tiego Floyd Mabusela.
Cross-examination
Wednesday’s proceedings, defence advocate Rian Gissing asked Sekgobela whether he still remembered the evidence he gave the previous day regarding Kekana’s arrest. “Yes, I do recall,” Sekgobela replied.
On Tuesday, Sekgobela testified that he rushed to Kekana’s home in Kew after receiving information that a white Hyundai i20 allegedly used in Swart’s murder had entered the property.
He said he feared the vehicle could easily be moved if police delayed obtaining a search warrant.
According to Sekgobela, his concern was based on information available at the time, including surveillance conducted by private security officer Christiaan Shepherd and video footage from the Vereeniging crime scene.
Gissing asked whether his evidence throughout the trial within a trial was that police had received information that two suspects travelling in a white Hyundai, allegedly involved in the Vereeniging shooting, were heading to 34 Fifth Road in Kew.
“We received information that two suspects involved in the shooting were on their way to 34 Fifth Road,” Sekgobela replied.
Gissing then put it to him that, according to his evidence, the two suspects had already been restrained and detained at Eighth Road.
Sekgobela agreed but reminded the court that he had also testified that a second vehicle, a Mercedes-Benz, had been involved in the shooting.
“I mentioned that it was two motor vehicles involved in the shooting in Vereeniging,” he said.
“I identified the Hyundai i20 by its registration number, but the registration number of the Mercedes-Benz was still unknown to us.
“As long as the Mercedes-Benz was still on the loose, we had not found it.”
He said this was why he remained concerned that evidence at the Fifth Road property could be removed or destroyed.
Gissing suggested that police had no concrete information about the Mercedes-Benz beyond its colour.
“Once you have the colour and the type of vehicle, the information is good,” Sekgobela responded.
When Gissing pointed out that police had no registration number or information about its occupants, Sekgobela conceded: “No, I didn’t have the Mercedes-Benz registration number at that time.”
Search warrant questionedGissing asked why Sekgobela did not send one officer to secure the Fifth Road property while the rest of the team dealt with the arrests at Eighth Road.
Sekgobela replied that they did not have enough manpower.
“We didn’t have enough manpower.”
Whem Gissing noted there were eight TRT members present, as well as officers from other units and private security personnel, Sekgobela maintained that he had made the operational decision.
“I took a decision as the operational commander to work as we did. And it worked for me.”
Gissing suggested that nothing prevented him from securing the property while simultaneously applying for a search warrant.
“There is,” Sekgobela replied.
When asked to explain, he said: “Sir, what kind of solution are you talking about? That will work for you. We work as a team. We have sensitive information, and we only share that information with people that I trust.”
Sekgobela testified that the arrests took place around 9am.
Gissing pointed out that about two hours had passed since police first received the information and asked what prevented him from securing the property while beginning the process of obtaining a search warrant.
Sekgobela replied that officers he had called to assist failed to arrive when expected.
“They only arrived later, when we were at No. 34 Fifth Road.”
When Gissing again suggested he could have called for additional backup, Sekgobela responded that he had to consider his answer carefully.
“You’re forcing me to answer… I have to think first. I can’t just answer.”
Gissing then suggested that, between 7am and 9am, police could have started the process of obtaining a search warrant while continuing with the operation.
Sekgobela disagreed, “I couldn’t apply for the search warrant before knowing that the vehicle had entered the premises.
“Had I applied for the search warrant and then the motor vehicle did not show up, what would that have assisted me with?”
Dispute over timeline
Gissing referred to Shepherd’s evidence, suggesting that Shepherd informed Sekgobela as early as 7.30am. Sekgobela replied that he did not recall such evidence and said the defence should check the record.
Senior State prosecutor Elize le Roux then intervened, saying her notes reflected that information about the suspects moving was received at about 8.40am, consistent with Shepherd’s testimony.
Gissing maintained he was referring specifically to Shepherd’s evidence that he had observed the Hyundai’s occupants before relaying the information to Sekgobela.
Le Roux responded that Shepherd had testified he first saw the Hyundai at about 8.35am.
The matter was left for legal argument.
Search warrant procedure
Gissing later questioned Sekgobela about the legal requirements for obtaining a search warrant. The captain admitted he could not immediately recall the relevant section of the Criminal Procedure Act and would need to refresh his memory.
He explained that an application requires reasons for the search, details of the evidence sought and why investigators believe it is located at the premises.
He said Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act deals with articles that may be seized.
Sekgobela outlined the process, explaining that officers complete a J51 form containing the applicant’s details, the address to be searched, and the court from which the warrant is sought.
He said the application also includes a sworn statement explaining the grounds for the search and any supporting evidence, such as photographs or, where appropriate, information from an informer.
Controversial businessman Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala, and his legal representative Annelene van den Heever
Using a hypothetical example, Sekgobela said that if an officer suspected someone of dealing drugs, the application would explain the observations supporting that suspicion and include any available evidence.
Asked whether an informer’s information would be disclosed, he said that would depend on the circumstances and whether the informer consented to its inclusion.
Warning to defence counselGissing suggested that once Shepherd had confirmed the Hyundai had entered the property, Sekgobela was in a position to apply for a search warrant.Sekgobela disagreed.
“At that time I did not know whose house I was applying to search,” he said.
“I only had the address and the registration number. I had not yet received the names.”
As the defence lawyer attempted to interrupt his answer, Sekgobela objected.
“Counsel, may you please not interject while I’m talking, because if I start doing that, it won’t be nice.”
Gissing continued, asking why he could not apply for a warrant after receiving Shepherd’s verification.
“Because at that time I did not know the name of the person for whom I was supposed to apply for the search warrant,” Sekgobela replied.
“With the experience that I have, I have never come across an application for a search warrant with only an address and no name. At least if there was an alias, then it would be different.”
When Gissing asked whether he was effectively saying he lacked sufficient information to apply for a warrant, Sekgobela agreed.
“Yes, I would say so.”
He explained that he was still waiting for his source to provide the names of the occupants of the Hyundai i20.
“My source was still trying to obtain those names. And on the other hand, we also did not want to lose the people who were driving the Hyundai i20.”
Banyana Banyana stars Robyn Moodaly-Salgado and Gabriela Salgado have written their names into Women's Africa Cup of Nations (WAFCON) history by becoming the first married couple to feature together in the same tournament match.The South African internationals reached the milestone during Banyana Banyana's opening Group Stage clash against Tanzania at the 2026 WAFCON in Casablanca, marking a historic moment for African women's football.The couple, who married in 2025 and are […]
