Durban Solid Waste Tender Fraud Case – Phone Evidence Under Scrutiny

What the Case Is About

The Durban Solid Waste (DSW) tender fraud case involves a alleged scheme worth R320 million. Twenty‑one people, including former eThekwini mayor Zandile Gumede and businessman Nzuza, face charges of corruption, fraud, money laundering and extortion linked to the tender.

Key Issue: When Was Nzuza’s Phone Taken?

Police Records vs. Officer’s Testimony

Lawyer Griffiths Madonsela SC pointed out that police records show Nzuza’s phone was picked up **25 minutes before** he arrived at the station. This timing contradicts the testimony of Captain Obed Lukhele, who said he confiscated the phone **after 7:20 am**.

Captain Lukhele’s Account

Lukhele testified that he took the phone on orders from a lieutenant colonel and sent it to the Digital Forensic Investigations (DFI) unit for downloading and mirroring. He said he recorded the phone’s booking into evidence (SAP13) and its later withdrawal for transport to DFI.

Missing Time Stamps

When questioned, Lukhele admitted that the documents available to the court **do not show** the exact time the phone was seized or withdrawn for DFI. He also agreed that there is **no record** of when the phone was actually transported to the DFI lab.

The 6:35 am Entry in SAP10

Lukhele denied writing the entry that states the phone was seized at **6:35 am** in the Incident Book (SAP10). He said he was present when the note was made but cannot recall who wrote it. Importantly, Nzuza had not yet arrived for his arrest at that time, making the 6:35 am timestamp impossible.

DFI Documentation Confusion

Form Dated March 11, 2020

Madonsela submitted a DFI form that was dated **March 11, 2020** and showed when the phone was fully booked into the DFI system. He argued that this leaves uncertainty about whether the phone was actually received by DFI on **March 10**, the day of the alleged seizure.

Lukhele’s Response

Lukhele suggested that DFI might have a form he signed on **March 10** when he handed over the phone, but no such document was produced in court.

Was Nzuza’s Lawyer Present?

Lukhele previously said that Nzuza’s lawyer (whose name cannot be disclosed) was present during the phone seizure and did not object. However, when Madonsela read out a detailed manuscript from the lawyer describing the events of March 10, Lukhele contradicted that account, raising doubts about his earlier statement.

What’s Next?

A new witness is expected to take the stand on Wednesday, which may shed more light on the timeline and procedures surrounding the phone evidence.

Conclusion

The phone evidence in the DSW tender fraud case is becoming a focal point of disagreement between the defence and the prosecution. Conflicting timestamps, missing documentation, and contradictory witness statements all raise questions about whether the phone was handled correctly and legally. As the trial continues, the court will need to clarify these issues to determine the reliability of the evidence against Nzuza and the other accused.