Two BMA officials among nine arrested for border corruption
The South African Police Service said the Limpopo Provincial Anti-Corruption Unit, Musina detectives, the Local Criminal Record Centre (LCRC), and BMA officials carried out the sting operation on Tuesday, 22 April, shortly after 09:00.
The focus was on disrupting the activities of individuals suspected of accepting bribes to allow unauthorised border crossings.
According to police, surveillance teams observed a white Mercedes Benz taxi stopping near a shop close to the border post.
Two BMA officers – a 61-year-old woman and a 44-year-old man – allegedly approached the taxi, accepted a bribe and allowed it to pass without inspection.
Authorities later intercepted the vehicle. Inside were 18 passengers – 13 with valid passports and five undocumented foreign nationals without travel documents.
Authorities arrested the driver and a female passenger, believed to have facilitated the illegal crossing, at the scene.
The authorities charged all nine suspects, including the two BMA officials, with corruption and brought them before the Musina Magistrate's Court on Wednesday, 23 April.
The five undocumented migrants face additional charges under the Immigration Act.
All accused are due to return to court on Thursday, 24 April, for a formal bail hearing.
Acting Provincial Police Commissioner in Limpopo, Major General Samuel Manala, commended the operation, saying it reflects the police's commitment to rooting out corruption and protecting the integrity of South Africa's borders.
'Public servants who choose to undermine the law for personal gain will face serious consequences,' said Manala.
'This successful operation highlights the importance of collaboration and vigilance in securing our borders.' he added.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
19 minutes ago
- IOL News
Fraudulent identity leads to deportation of businessman
A businessman claiming Palestinian roots has left the country after failing to force the Department of Home Affairs to allow him to legalise his status in South Africa. Image: ARMAND HOUGH/AFRICAN NEWS AGENCY (ANA) A businessman has left South Africa after failing to stop the Department of Home Affairs' bid to deport him when he was found to be using a fraudulent name. Manar Alnajjar or 'Frederik van Wyk' had been detained at the Lindela Repatriation Centre in Mogale City after being arrested in January this year at OR Tambo International Airport on his return from a business trip in Dubai. He was charged with possession of a fraudulent South African identity document and passport. Alnajjar appeared before the Nigel Magistrate's Court and pleaded guilty to contravening the Immigration Act and fraud in April and sentenced to three months direct imprisonment for fraud and R120 000 for being in the country illegally. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The court suspended R100 000 of the amount for three years on condition that he is not found guilty of a similar offence. After completing his sentence, Alnajjar was transferred to the Lindela Repatriation Centre for deportation. In his defence, he claimed he first entered the country in 2007 using a visitor's visa and subsequently obtained a general work visa in February 2011. Alnajjar stated that he aspired to be a permanent South African citizen and engaged the services of an immigration agent. Afterwards, they visited the offices of Home Affairs in Nigel, which then furnished him with the South African ID containing his photograph and under the name 'Frederik van Wyk'. It was during his stay at the Lindela Repatriation Centre in July that Alnajjar launched an urgent application to the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg to force Home Affairs director-general Livhuwani Makhode, minister Dr. Leon Schreiber and the head of the centre to release him to legalise his status in the country. Alnajjar told the court that he previously held a Jordanian passport and that his family is originally from Gaza but after the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and its Arab neighbours, his family along with others were forced to relocate to Jordan. During his time in South Africa, he knowingly used the fraudulent document and used it to apply for a passport. Alnajjar added that he had a life partner who is a Ukrainian citizen, also a permanent resident and holder of a permanent South African non-citizen document, and together they had a daughter, who is 11 months old. In 2013, he married a Bulgarian citizen but divorced her in 2022. He also insisted that he is a successful businessman and a shareholder of a company operating in the recycling space in and outside South Africa and that he employed about ten people. Alnajjar said the company had been steadily expanding until he was arrested earlier this year. However, Acting Judge Patrick Malungana said the court could not countenance the perpetuation of illegal activities despite showing remorse by pleading guilty for fraud after he was arrested in possession of the fraudulent documents. 'The applicant (Alnajjar) has known all along of his fraudulent identity document. It is only when the law caught up with him that he pleaded guilty, and has some sort of expectation for the law to prevent his deportation because he has some family and business interests in the country,' the acting judge said, explaining his decision to dismiss the urgent application last week.
The Citizen
19 minutes ago
- The Citizen
EFF calls on Madlanga to ensure ‘every cent' of inquiry is accounted for
The commission is expected to cost taxpayers an estimated R147.9 million. The EFF has called on former Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga to ensure that every cent of the cost of the venue where the inquiry into KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police chief Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's allegations of criminal infiltration into the South African justice system takes place is accounted for. Secretary-general Marshall Dlamini wrote to Madlanga in his capacity as chairperson of the Judicial Commission. Venue cost The commission is expected to cost taxpayers an estimated R147.9 million. In the letter, Dlamini outlined the commencement of the commission's work, with particular focus on the venue to be used and the overall costs associated with its operations. 'The EFF's concern arises from the costly precedent set by the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture ('the Zondo Commission'). The Zondo Commission cost the nation nearly R1 billion, with a significant portion of the expenditure linked directly to the lease of its venue at Hill on Empire in Parktown, Johannesburg. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost 'This expense was not incidental; it was one of the single largest cost drivers over the Commission's lifespan,' Dlamini said. Not about expenditure Dlamini said the EFF's letter is not just a question of high expenditure. 'The EFF has repeatedly raised concerns about inflated pricing in such lease agreements, lack of transparent and competitive procurement processes, the use of elitist venues that are inaccessible to ordinary members of the public, undermining the constitutional principle of openness in such inquiries,' Dlamini said. 'As the EFF, we believe that the public has a right to expect that every cent spent on this commission is used in the most prudent and transparent manner possible. The commission of inquiry must not become a conduit for the enrichment of private landlords and politically connected service providers at the expense of the people. 'It is our view that for this Commission, the Chairperson must insist on the use of a municipal hall or another publicly owned facility for the entire duration of its operations,' he said. Dlamini said in the case of the Zondo Commission, the awarding of contracts to Tiso Black Star and Redefine Properties raised doubts about whether 'due process was followed at all.' Credibility Dlamini warned that should the commission proceed to lease a privately-owned venue under terms similar to those of the Zondo Commission, it will be making a choice that is both 'financially reckless and contrary to the public interest. It would also risk undermining the credibility of the inquiry before a single witness is heard.' 'We trust that you will receive this letter in the constructive spirit in which it is intended: to safeguard the financial sustainability of the Commission, preserve its credibility, and ensure that it remains open and accessible to all South Africans.' President Cyril Ramaphosa announced his decision to establish a commission of inquiry to investigate the serious allegations of political interference in police operations made by Mkhwanazi earlier in July. The commission is expected to deliver a preliminary report in three months and a final report within six months of its formation. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: Mkhwanazi first to be consulted [VIDEO]
IOL News
19 minutes ago
- IOL News
Power, Proximity, and the Crisis in South Africa's Law Enforcement
Accused mastermind Katiso Molefe appears in the Alexandra Magistrates' Court amid allegations linking him to the murders of DJs and drug-related killings across Gauteng. Image: Simon Majadibodu/IOL Clyde N. S. Ramalaine South Africa's criminal justice system is buckling under the weight of unfolding revelations and mounting drama, this time drawing the spotlight to colourful businessman, self-styled philanthropist, and consultant Malcolm X. Former Hawks boss, General Godfrey Lebeya, and the controversial arrest of KT Molefe initially introduced an unnamed source who had made a critical phone call. That individual has since self-identified as Malcolm X. Molefe stands accused of orchestrating a series of killings, including those of Armand Swart and DJ Sumbody. What began as a forceful exposé by KZN Provincial Commissioner Lt. General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi has now spiralled into a case study of influence, access, and institutional compromise. At the heart of this saga lies not just the veracity of claims but the structural rot revealed through a cast of characters who blur the lines between private interest and public power. Into this ever-unfolding crisis emerges businessman Malcolm X, now in self-disclosure at the centre of a growing controversy following allegations that he contacted former Hawks boss General Godfrey Lebeya to confirm whether officers from the elite unit had been dispatched to the home of KT Molefe. Before emerging as a high-profile businessman, Malcolm X was introduced to South African public discourse against the backdrop of his turbulent years as a student at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits). At Wits, he gained attention for his charismatic presence, populist rhetoric, and penchant for controversy. Though he initially showed promise, his student years were marked by personal instability, culminating in a reported attempted suicide, perhaps underscoring the psychological strain of navigating university life and complex social expectations. His later descent into more precarious criminal territory became evident when he was arrested alongside several police officers under murky circumstances involving abuse of power and alleged impersonation. On 23 October 2023, Malcolm X was arrested alongside three police officers on charges of corruption and extortion. They are accused of coercing a woman by threatening to arrest her and her son to pay R580,000 to avoid detention for purportedly forged passport stamps. Malcolm X is alleged to have acted as the middleman facilitating the bribe. The Hawks' Serious Corruption Unit arrested them following a joint investigation with the National Prosecuting Authority. The case, currently before the courts, was last postponed in July 2024, with Malcolm X out on bail. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading News24, on Friday, broke the story that a warrant of arrest had been issued against Malcolm X for failing to appear in court for the ongoing extortion trial scheduled for August 1, after he reportedly fell ill. This development casts further shadow on his credibility and amplifies the gravity of his involvement. While the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' remains a foundational pillar of any just society, and must rightly apply to Malcolm X, his arrest nonetheless exposes troubling dynamics within South Africa's governance and policing spheres. That an individual facing such serious allegations could simultaneously maintain access to the upper echelons of law enforcement and political elites forces a reckoning with how proximity to power can erode ideals of impartiality and accountability. This is not a judgment of guilt, but a reflection on the architecture of influence and the uncomfortable entanglement of those entrusted with public service. Institutional authority increasingly appears to be governed less by merit and integrity than by informal networks, favouring economies, and a culture where access supersedes accountability. Regardless of the legal outcome, the plausibility of such access calls into question the integrity of systems meant to be impartial and reveals how fragile the boundary remains between protector and perpetrator. What remains troubling and a cause for concern is how Malcolm X obtained direct access to the highest levels of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI). According to Lebeya, Malcolm X was regarded as an informant based on prior interactions. Malcolm X, however, categorically rejects this label, asserting that he met Lebeya only once, a meeting he claims to have documented with a photograph, which was also published in the ANG report. This contradiction introduces the first ambiguity surrounding his role and relationship with law enforcement. Secondly, Malcolm X remains vague about the identity of the individual who contacted him to intervene. He describes the person only as a 'longstanding client' for whom he offers unspecified 'consulting services,' offering no clarity on the nature of these services or how they qualify him to insert himself into sensitive police matters. He inconsistently refers to the client as KT Molefe's 'brother' and later as a close 'friend,' leaving the actual connection unclear. To explain the brother-friend conundrum, X resorts to philosophy in an attempt to deflect 702 anchor Manyatela's direct question. Thirdly, General Lebeya's version adds further complexity. He confirms receiving a call from someone, now known to be Malcolm X, inquiring about the presence of Hawks officers at a residence, and that the caller described Molefe as a 'friend.' Both Lebeya and X, however, vehemently deny any personal acquaintance with Molefe. Despite this, X claims to have driven to Molefe's residence after receiving the address from his client, where he reportedly encountered around 40 people and began questioning them about their affiliations. As for Lebeya, despite his knowledge of standard arrest procedures, which included the issuance of a warrant, he still chose to dispatch Hawks members to the scene. Why would Lebeya, a seasoned police officer and leader of the Hawks, engage in this? What compels him to be open to such action, especially given his familiarity with legal protocols? This conduct raises serious legal and ethical questions: By what authority did Malcolm X believe he could interfere in a police operation, particularly one involving a person he claims not to know? Fourthly, a report by Bianca Binase for Africa News Global notes: 'Malcolm X insisted that Mkhwanazi must have known it was him (X) who had called Lebeya, because he (X) made a call to Lebeya and put him on speakerphone while the team Mkhwanazi had sent to effect the arrest were listening.' X appears more than comfortable questioning on-duty officers about their directives. Why would he feel entitled to act this way? What informs his belief that he holds a rightful role in the arrest process, especially when he claims no connection to Molefe? Former head of the Hawks Lieutenant-General Godfrey Lebeya. Image: GCIS Ordinarily, police effecting an arrest at a private residence do so under the authority of a duly issued warrant. The existence of such a warrant provides them with legal standing, regardless of who is involved. If such a warrant were in place, on what grounds did Malcolm X believe he could question the arrest or its legitimacy? Interfering in the execution of a lawful arrest, especially by a party not directly involved, can constitute a criminal offence. A plausible explanation lies in Malcolm X's perceived or actual access to General Lebeya. This relationship, if exercised casually, raises concerns about privilege, institutional credibility, and the politicisation of law enforcement. In the fifth instance, Malcolm X admitted in an interview that he first tried to contact Minister Bheki Cele directly. When that failed, he called General Lebeya. This points to an extraordinary level of access to South Africa's security hierarchy. Malcolm X downplayed this by claiming such individuals are 'ordinary people' and thus accessible. Yet, this attempt to normalise access belies the larger implications. Pressed by a 702 radio anchor about WhatsApp conversations between himself and Lebeya, Malcolm X insisted these had nothing to do with KT Molefe. In the sixth instance, following Lebeya's public remarks, Malcolm X contacted him again to question why his name had not been disclosed. Lebeya cited the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), saying he needed Malcolm X's consent. Malcolm X then attempted to reach Mkhwanazi to "correct" what he saw as a misrepresentation—that Mkhwanazi knew it was he who contacted Lebeya. However, it appears no direct conversation between them occurred. Malcolm X later claimed that the idea of publicly naming himself as the caller originated with him and that he passed this suggestion to Kenny Kunene. He stated that he encouraged Kunene to break the story and identify him. Given Kunene's media interests, including Weekly Xposé, Africa News 24-7 (now Africa News Global), it is plausible he would seize such a story. Malcolm X's insistence on being recognised as the person who called Lebeya, and his later frustration at not being publicly acknowledged, suggests a deeper psychological and political dynamic: the performance of proximity to power. In South Africa, where access often masquerades as authority, Malcolm X seems to draw credibility from being seen as present and pivotal. His conduct points to a strategy of influence-as-performance, not merely to aid a legal process, but to establish indispensability. Being left unnamed is, for him, not protection but erasure. While it may be premature to draw definitive conclusions, the possibility that Malcolm X is leveraging this controversy for personal or reputational gain cannot be dismissed. His repeated statements that he would 'force his way' to testify before the Madlanga Commission suggest a fixation on visibility over accountability.
