The former City Manager of eThekwini Sipho Nzuza is challenging the seizure of his cellphone by Hawks members
Image: Doctor Ngcobo / Independent Newspapers
The defence has highlighted what it describes as several inconsistencies in the testimony of Hawks investigators and argued that their explanation for the seizure of former eThekwini City Manager Sipho Nzuza’s cellphone was legally flawed.
This was revealed by Advocate Griffiths Madonsela SC during his cross-examination of the lead investigating officer in the R320 million Durban Solid Waste tender fraud trial involving former eThekwini mayor Zandile Gumede and 20 co-accused on Tuesday at Durban High Court.
The investigating officer, who cannot be named, maintained that Nzuza voluntarily handed over his cellphone to members of the Hawks on March 10, 2020, for downloading and mirror imaging.
Nzuza was arrested on that day and taken to the holding cells at Durban Central police station, where members of the Hawks seized his cellphone.
The defence, however, argues that the cellphone was seized under false pretences.
During testimony, the former colonel said they were already aware of the evidence they expected to find on the phone, but confirmation was needed. He conceded that they did not obtain a search-and-seizure warrant, despite having successfully applied for and obtained a warrant of arrest for Nzuza on March 9, 2020.
Advocate Griffiths Madonsela SC leads the legal team of former eThekwini city manager, Sipho Nzuza.
Image: Nomonde Zondi
The former officer further told the court that, as a professional police officer, he does not communicate directly with an accused person after an arrest and instead engages through the accused’s legal representative.
However, he agreed that his junior, Captain Obed Lukhele, did not communicate through Nzuza’s attorney when he seized the cellphone and asked for the PIN.
“So he was not doing things the way that professional policemen do?” Madonsela asked.
The witness responded that there was an explanation.
“When Lukhele took the phone, he might have done so in terms of Sections 22 and 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allow police to seize items that may assist in an investigation. In that instance, we do not require any arrangement with the attorney,” he testified.
Madonsela countered that Lukhele had never testified that he relied on Section 22 when seizing the device. The witness replied that Lukhele had been acting under instructions.
“I will argue that the reason you give this explanation, which is utterly wrong in law, is because you have no explanation for Lukhele’s actions,” Madonsela put to the witness.
“It is your right as a representative to argue,” the former colonel replied.
Madonsela also highlighted contradictions between the evidence of Lukhele, the former colonel, and a retired lieutenant colonel regarding the events surrounding the seizure of Nzuza’s cellphone.
The senior counsel pointed out that when Lukhele testified in May, he told the court that after discovering that Nzuza had provided an incorrect PIN, he returned to the holding cells area and found the former colonel and the retired lieutenant colonel standing with Nzuza’s attorney. According to Lukhele, he then informed them that the PIN was incorrect.
However, when the former colonel testified on Monday, he said Nzuza’s attorney had already left the police station by the time Lukhele returned.
Asked to explain the discrepancy, the witness replied: “It is two versions. I say the attorney had already left, and he says she was still in the vicinity. It means she was still there, but not with us.”
The witness was also asked to comment on inconsistencies between his testimony and that of the retired lieutenant colonel.
The lieutenant colonel testified in August 2025 that Nzuza’s attorney was informed only after the cellphone had already been seized. The former colonel, however, testified that the attorney had been informed beforehand that the phone would be seized.
He told the court that he could not comment on his former colleague’s evidence.
“I don’t want to debate with you, but I will argue that the reason for your inconsistencies with the lieutenant colonel is that both versions are incorrect,” Madonsela said.
The trial continues.