“SO HE’S YOUR FAMILY MEMBER?” SIBANYONI GRILLED OVER SAPS OFFICER
Gated Estate Access Code Leaks Trigger Explosive Confrontation Over Secret Police Networks
A high-stakes session of the judicial commission of inquiry descended into deep tension as a prominent witness took the stand to confront allegations of corrupt police infiltration, secret gated estate access codes, and an untraceable surge of fatal violence.
Mr. Spuni formally opened his testimony by addressing a critical case of mistaken identity within the state’s voluminous evidence bundle.
He testified under oath that Warrant Officer Mashangu, also known as Poho, is a serving member of the South African Police Service and an entirely different person from Calvin Mashangu.
Mr. Spuni clarified the familial ties, explaining that his younger brother fathered a child with a woman from the Bholo family, making Warrant Officer Mashangu a brother-in-law in the traditional cultural sense.
The chairperson intervened to question the exact nature of this cultural structure, asking how a child born out of wedlock establishes a brother-in-law status.
Mr. Spuni testified that in his culture, having a child with a family establishes a recognized relationship known as “monyanya” or “barabane”.
The chairperson remarked on the cultural differences, noting that where he originates from in the area of iXopo, despite being isiBhaca and assimilated to amaXhosa, such circumstances do not create that specific familial designation.
Resuming his sworn statement, Mr. Spuni emphasized that Calvin Mashangu shares no personal, professional, or familial relationship with Warrant Officer Mashangu beyond the coincidence of sharing a common surname.
He cautioned the panel that conflating the two individuals creates factual confusion and invalidates any adverse inferences drawn by state investigators.
Mr. Spuni then addressed exhibits CJC 484 and CJC 485, which contained news reports regarding Jabu Gqabo Mashangu, an alleged taxi hitman.
He stated under oath that Jabu Gqabo Mashangu is a completely distinct third individual with zero connection to either Calvin Mashangu or Warrant Officer Mashangu.
The inquiry then shifted to exhibits CJC 458 through CJC 466 and CJC 480, detailing police access codes to a high-security residential compound.
Mr. Spuni provided critical context regarding the operational security environment he faced during the period under investigation.
He testified that he experienced a devastating and sustained series of fatal attacks among his immediate circle of taxi industry associates and colleagues, describing the wave of killings as an unprecedented avalanche of deaths.
In response to the extreme threat environment, Mr. Spuni issued a mandatory directive commanding all his associates and team members to hold every meeting inside his private office at the St. Cathryn Golf Estate rather than unmonitored external venues.
He clarified to the panel that his office operates out of a guest house located at his personal residential property within the estate.
To facilitate these secure gatherings, Mr. Spuni generated and distributed gated estate entry codes to required attendees, including Warrant Officer Mashangu.
He explained the mechanics of the digital entry system, testifying that a single generated access code could be duplicated up to five times upon request.
Mr. Spuni revealed that on July 12 and July 13, 2025, he traveled abroad out of the country while multiple estate access codes were simultaneously sent to Mr. Bafana Sindani from his account.
He asserted that issuing access codes to trusted recipients did not mean he personally attended, authorized, or had knowledge of the resulting meetings.
Addressing section C2 of the evidence bundle, Mr. Spuni denied knowing two individuals listed in the estate entry logs, identifying them as Belusa Mashiku and Reuben Benjamin.
He explicitly denied being part of any WhatsApp communication group with Belusa Mashiku, demanding that the commission forensically verify the true participant list of exhibit CJC 480.
Mr. Spuni systematically addressed the individual records of five active South African Police Service officers named in the state bundle.
Regarding Belusa Mashiku and Reuben Benjamin, who appear in an 18-page digital forensic record of WhatsApp communications with Mr. Bafana Sindani, Mr. Spuni testified that he never added them to any chat group, had no professional or social history with them, and held zero knowledge of their communications.
Regarding Kgago Thapelo Emmanuel, featured in exhibits CJC 462, CJC 464, and CJC 493, Mr. Spuni testified that he does not know him personally.
He explained that Kgago Thapelo Emmanuel appeared in the estate entry records solely because primary code recipients forwarded their valid entry passes to third parties beyond his knowledge or control.
Mr. Spuni testified that he was entirely unaware of the 10-page text log between Kgago Thapelo Emmanuel and Mr. Bafana Sindani detailed in exhibit CJC 493.
Regarding Peluza Mhlebo Elvis, cited in exhibits CJC 460 and CJC 464, Mr. Spuni testified that he maintains no personal, social, or business relationship with him, attributing his estate entry to onward code sharing by trusted contacts.
When Mr. Spuni began reading paragraph 45 regarding the commission’s cumulative argument, the chairperson interrupted the proceedings to question the legal language used in the witness statement.
The chairperson asked advocate Ms. Koffer whether it was accurate to frame the commission’s questions as an “argument” when the panel was simply gathering facts under a regulation 10 notice.
Ms. Koffer responded that the state’s evidence bundle and notices created a distinct narrative pattern implying Mr. Spuni maintained direct control over five active police officers through WhatsApp chats and estate access passes.
Following a brief exchange, Ms. Koffer agreed to formally withdraw the word “argument” from the submission to avoid procedural friction, while the chairperson instructed Mr. Spuni to continue reading the text as written.
Mr. Spuni resumed his testimony, confirming that among the five implicated officers, he only knows Warrant Officer Mashangu in a personal capacity as a homeboy from KwaMhlanga.
He rejected the state’s premise that he directed estate access or group chat memberships, pointing out that chat access is easily shared through forwarded invite links.
Mr. Spuni cited the Shangase Commission report, noting its explicit finding that police infiltration of taxi networks was systematic and pervasive across the sector.
He argued that the mere presence of law enforcement officers in the vicinity of a taxi leader does not establish that the leader organized or benefited from police infiltration.
Mr. Spuni concluded his segment by reiterating that Warrant Officer Mashangu received estate access codes strictly in his personal capacity as a homeboy attending meetings during a period of severe security threats.
Copyright: MDNtv
