What Happened in Court?
During a hearing at the Durban High Court, a Hawks captain explained what happened when police asked former eThekwini city manager Sipho Nzuza for his mobile phone. The officer said Nzuza did not raise any objections when he was told the phone would be taken for a digital download.
Who Gave the Order?
Senior Officer’s Instruction
Captain Obed December Lukhele testified that he received the request to seize Nzuza’s phone from a senior colleague – a former lieutenant colonel. The order was given while Nzuza’s lawyer and the case’s investigating officer were present.
Lawyer’s Reaction
According to the captain, Nzuza’s lawyer was standing next to the senior officer when the instruction was made. The lawyer did not say anything against taking the phone.
The Phone‑Hand‑Over Process
Explaining the Reason
When Nzuza asked why his phone was needed, Lukhele told him it was for downloading data. He added that he was simply following the senior officer’s directions.
Providing the PIN
Nzuza first handed over the phone and a PIN, but the PIN turned out to be wrong. Lukhele noticed the mistake later while trying to silence a constantly ringing phone in the billing office. He returned to the cell area, asked for the correct PIN, and Nzuza admitted the error and gave the right one.
Why This Matters
The disagreement over whether Nzuza truly consented to the phone seizure has sparked a “trial within a trial.” The court must decide if the evidence pulled from the phone can be used in the main case, which involves alleged fraud in the Durban Solid Waste tender worth about $320 million.
Key Takeaways
- The Hawks captain says Nzuza did not object when asked for his phone.
- The order came from a senior officer, given in front of Nzuza’s lawyer and the investigator.
- Nzuza’s lawyer did not protest the seizure.
- An incorrect PIN was first given, but the correct one was provided after a follow‑up request.
- The admissibility of the phone data is still being debated.
Conclusion
The testimony from Captain Lukhele adds another layer to the ongoing legal battle over the DSW tender fraud case. Whether the phone evidence will be allowed hinges on the court’s view of consent and proper procedure. For now, the dispute continues, and both sides await the judge’s ruling on this crucial piece of evidence.
