The corruption trial of former Crime Intelligence head Richard Mdluli has turned to whether evidence gathered through three search warrants, including a car finance document, can be used, with the Pretoria High Court running a trial-within-a-trial on admissibility. Mdluli and his co-accused are presumed innocent and have pleaded not guilty.

Mdluli, former SAPS supply chain manager Heine Barnard and former chief financial officer Solomon Lazarus face 19 counts, including corruption, fraud, theft, contravention of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act and defeating the ends of justice. The charges relate to the alleged abuse of the police secret services fund between 2008 and 2012.

The car finance document

The State alleges that a document found at Mdluli's property in Brackenfell concerns two vehicles bought for Crime Intelligence. It alleges that a discount on the vehicles was never returned to Crime Intelligence, and that the money was used to settle Mdluli's own vehicle finance. The vehicles were reportedly registered in his wife's name, although they belonged to Crime Intelligence. These are allegations; none has been proved in court.

Testing how the evidence was seized

The trial-within-a-trial began on Monday 9 November. The court is examining whether the evidence was lawfully obtained and seized, and the defence is challenging the admissibility of material from three search warrants.

Kobus Roelofse, a retired investigator who worked for the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation and the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, testified about how documents were collected from police premises. He said he did not personally search offices; officials were asked to bring records to him.

Defence counsel Ameline Roestorf objected to the State's questions to a retired police officer witness, arguing they went into the merits of the case. The State replied that the questions were needed "to establish the witness's bona fides". Judge John Holland-Mutter agreed and said proceedings must stay focused on the lawfulness of the seizure.

Earlier disputes over the classification of the documents caused delays in the trial. The documents have since been declassified.

What happens next

The trial-within-a-trial continues. Monday's session was adjourned early and the hearing rolled over to Tuesday 10 November. The court has not announced when it will rule on admissibility.

What we do not yet know

  • When the court will rule on whether the evidence is admissible.
  • The specific legal grounds on which the defence challenges the three warrants, which have not been made public in the reports we have seen.
  • What happened in court after Tuesday 10 November.