Khan tried to bolster charges against Crime Intelligence CFO drugged, robbed by sex worker

PRETORIA – Fresh testimony before the Madlanga Commission has raised questions about the prosecution of Crime Intelligence chief financial officer Major-General Philani Lushaba, after an Investigating Directorate Against Corruption prosecutor told the inquiry that senior police official Feroz Khan allegedly offered a statement aimed at strengthening the case.

The testimony has placed renewed focus on how the case against Lushaba was constructed and whether some of the allegations relied on evidence that was sufficient to justify prosecution.

The developments emerged during the testimony of IDAC advocate Peter Serunye, who questioned why Lushaba was being prosecuted over a matter in which he had allegedly been drugged and robbed by a sex worker.

Lushaba’s controversial burglary case

Lushaba became the subject of a criminal investigation after an incident in which a sex worker he had brought to his home allegedly stole his state-issued firearm, cellphone and laptop.

The incident dates back to February 2022.

According to earlier reporting, Lushaba initially gave police a misleading account of what had happened, allegedly attempting to conceal the circumstances surrounding the theft.

The case later expanded beyond the alleged theft itself.

Investigators alleged that there had been an attempt to cover up the circumstances of the incident, leading to charges against Lushaba and several other officials.

Serunye questions the prosecution

Serunye’s testimony has now raised questions about the decision to prosecute Lushaba.

The IDAC prosecutor reportedly questioned the basis for pursuing the Crime Intelligence CFO in circumstances where he had himself allegedly been drugged and robbed.

The issue is significant because prosecutors must establish that there is sufficient evidence to support criminal charges and ultimately prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Serunye’s evidence suggests there were concerns within IDAC about whether the available evidence sufficiently supported the prosecution.

Khan allegedly offered a statement

Against that background, the commission heard that Feroz Khan offered a statement that would bolster the charges against Lushaba.

The allegation raises questions about the circumstances in which the statement was produced, what information it contained and why it was considered necessary.

The key issue for the commission is likely to be whether the statement provided legitimate additional evidence or whether it was being used to strengthen a case that already had evidentiary weaknesses.

The testimony does not itself establish that Khan acted unlawfully.

Those questions remain matters for the commission and other competent authorities to assess.

Why the case matters

The Lushaba matter is important because it sits at the intersection of Crime Intelligence, police accountability and the controversial prosecution of senior officials.

Crime Intelligence operates within one of the most sensitive areas of the South African Police Service.

Its officials deal with confidential information, intelligence operations and matters involving organised crime and national security.

Any allegations involving senior Crime Intelligence personnel therefore carry significant institutional consequences.

Other officials were also charged

The case was not limited to Lushaba.

Earlier investigations resulted in the arrest of Colonel Glen Hudson, Colonel Eugene Pitout and Captain Jonny Mogashwa.

The officials were accused of involvement in an alleged cover-up relating to the burglary.

The charges included corruption, defeating the ends of justice and perjury. The accused officials were granted bail and ordered to surrender their passports.

The alleged conduct included claims that statements in the police docket were changed and that stolen items were retrieved.

The evidence battle

The latest testimony highlights a broader question facing the Madlanga Commission: how criminal investigations involving senior police officials were initiated, developed and ultimately prosecuted.

The commission has been hearing extensive evidence about the operations of IDAC and its handling of cases involving Crime Intelligence.

Earlier testimony by IDAC prosecutor Drushantha Ramsamy also implicated former IDAC head Andrea Johnson in decisions surrounding Crime Intelligence cases. Ramsamy testified that Johnson led aspects of the cases and accused her of misleading the Madlanga Commission.

That testimony has added another layer to the questions surrounding the prosecution strategy.

From burglary to corruption case

The evolution of the Lushaba matter is particularly significant.

What began with an alleged burglary involving a senior police officer became a much broader investigation involving claims of a cover-up and alleged interference with the criminal justice process.

The State’s challenge is to demonstrate the evidentiary connection between the original incident and the criminal charges eventually brought against the accused.

For the defence, the question is whether investigators and prosecutors went beyond what the available evidence could reasonably support.

What the Madlanga Commission must establish

The commission is not a criminal court.

Its role is to examine the evidence before it and make findings and recommendations within its terms of reference.

However, testimony about the Lushaba case could help establish how decisions were made inside IDAC and whether proper prosecutorial processes were followed.

Among the questions likely to attract attention are:

• Who decided that Lushaba should be prosecuted?
• What evidence supported the charges?
• Why was Khan’s statement considered necessary?
• What did the statement add to the State’s case?
• Were alternative interpretations of the burglary properly considered?
• Did investigators distinguish between the alleged theft and the alleged cover-up?
• Were prosecutorial decisions made independently and objectively?

A bigger problem for Crime Intelligence

The controversy arrives as the Madlanga Commission continues examining allegations of dysfunction and misconduct involving South Africa’s policing and intelligence structures.

Crime Intelligence has repeatedly featured in testimony before the inquiry, including allegations concerning senior appointments, investigations and relationships between police officials.

The Lushaba case therefore provides another window into the internal dynamics surrounding the country’s intelligence policing structures.

No final finding yet

The allegations heard by the commission remain allegations.

Lushaba and the other accused persons are entitled to the presumption of innocence unless a competent court determines otherwise.

Likewise, testimony concerning Khan and other officials must be evaluated against all available evidence before conclusions are reached.

The commission’s findings could ultimately provide important answers about whether the criminal case against Lushaba was properly constructed and whether the conduct of officials involved in the investigation complied with the law.

The bottom line

The latest testimony has shifted attention from the alleged burglary itself to the process used to build the criminal case against a senior Crime Intelligence officer.

Serunye’s concerns about the prosecution, combined with the allegation that Khan offered a statement to strengthen the charges, raise difficult questions about evidence, prosecutorial independence and the handling of sensitive police investigations.

As the Madlanga Commission continues its work, the key issue will be whether the evidence reveals a legitimate attempt to pursue accountability — or whether investigators and prosecutors allowed a questionable case to become bigger than the evidence justified.

For now, those questions remain unresolved.