The Durban Tender Fraud Trial – What’s Happening with the Phone Evidence?
Who’s Involved?
- Sipho Nzuza – former eThekwini city manager, arrested in March 2020.
- Hawks investigators – the elite police unit handling the case.
- Advocate Griffiths Madonsela SC – defense lawyer questioning the investigators.
- Unnamed former colonel – lead investigating officer (cannot be named for legal reasons).
- Captain Obed Lukhele – subordinate who actually took Nzuza’s phone.
- Retired lieutenant colonel – another officer whose testimony differs.
What the Defense Claims
Madonsela argues that the way Nzuza’s mobile phone was seized was not legal. He points out several problems:
- No search‑and‑seizure warrant – the Hawks only had an arrest warrant for Nzuza.
- Phone taken without lawyer’s input – investigators usually contact a suspect’s lawyer after an arrest, but Lukhele spoke directly to Nzuza to ask for the PIN.
- Inconsistent stories – different officers give different versions of who was present when the phone was taken.
The Investigators’ Side
The former colonel testified that:
- Nzuza voluntarily handed over his phone on March 10, 2020, for downloading and mirroring.
- They already suspected the phone held useful evidence but needed confirmation.
- Lukhele acted under Sections 22 and 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allow police to seize items that may help an investigation without needing a lawyer’s agreement.
- As a professional officer, he normally would not talk to an accused after arrest; instead, he’d contact the lawyer.
Where the Stories Clash
| Officer | What They Said About the Lawyer |
|---|---|
| Captain Lukhele (May testimony) | After discovering the PIN was wrong, he returned to the holding cells and found the former colonel, a retired lieutenant colonel, and Nzuza’s lawyer still there. |
| Former colonel (Monday testimony) | The lawyer had already left the police station when Lukhele returned. |
| Retired lieutenant colonel (August 2025 testimony) | The lawyer was only told after the phone had been confiscated. |
When asked to explain the difference, the former colonel said there are “two versions” – his version and Lukhele’s – suggesting the lawyer might have been nearby but not with them.
Madonsela pressed further, saying the colonel’s explanation “is legally completely false” because no proper justification was given for Lukhele’s actions.
Why This Matters
- Legal rights: If the phone was taken unlawfully, any evidence from it could be thrown out, weakening the prosecution’s case.
- Police procedure: The case highlights how important it is for officers to follow correct steps, especially when dealing with suspects’ personal belongings.
- Public trust: Transparent investigations help maintain confidence in the justice system.
Conclusion
The trial continues as both sides debate whether Nzuza’s phone was seized properly. The defense stresses missing warrants, missing lawyer contact, and conflicting officer testimonies. The prosecution (through the Hawks) insists the seizure was allowed under existing law and that any discrepancies are minor misunderstandings. Until the court resolves these disputes, the fate of the phone‑based evidence—and possibly the whole case—remains uncertain.
