Durban drug bust reveals new trend in illicit drug market
A drug bust on Queen Nandi Drive, Durban has not only removed thousands of heroin capsules from Durban's streets but also highlighted a shift in the province's drug trends, according to police.
On Sunday the Durban Metro Police Drug Team, working in collaboration with the Counter Narcotics Unit under KKwaZulu-Natal Crime Intelligence, intercepted an alleged drug distributor at Petroport Northbound.
The suspect, a former nightclub owner now allegedly supplying drugs across greater Durban, was caught while reportedly attempting to deliver heroin.
Police seized approximately 5,013 heroin capsules (pending final forensic count), a CZ 75 pistol with its serial number filed off, 17 live 9mm rounds, a magazine, and other drugs valued at R160,390.
Durban Metro Police spokesperson Boysie Zungu said while heroin remains dangerous and profitable for syndicates, demand for the drug has been decreasing in KwaZulu-Natal due to a shift toward cheaper, more potent alternatives.
'Heroin demand has decreased in KZN due to the increased popularity of crack cocaine (rock), which is now cheaper and more potent,' Zungu said. 'However, drug abuse continues to be a challenge within our communities.'
Zungu explained that market dynamics have shifted sharply. 'Previously, a heroin capsule cost R10. With a drastic increase in price due to export problems from supplying countries, heroin prices have shot up to R35 a capsule,' he said.
'This has made heroin capsules more scarce making this bust all the more significant.
'Removing over 5,000 capsules from the street is not just a disruption to supply, but a statement to communities and traffickers that police are taking action,' he said.
The suspect faces charges of dealing in and possession of heroin, illegal possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. Police said intelligence gathered during the arrest would assist in further operations.
Zungu added: 'While it is difficult to stop drug dealing completely with limited resources, we remain committed to targeting dealers head-on. Community partnerships are key to disrupting the changing drug landscape.'
THE MERCURY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
25-05-2025
- Daily Maverick
East London attorney wins back ownership of farm after protracted court battle
Roger Smith sold his land under the threat of expropriation. Nearly two decades later, he won it back — and a scathing court judgment against the Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality. An East London attorney has, after a long legal battle, won back ownership of a farm in Buffalo City (East London) that he was forced to sell to the municipality under the threat of expropriation. The attorney, Roger Smith, bought Wembley Farm in 1985. In 1999, facing the threat of the property being expropriated for use as a municipal cemetery, he reluctantly agreed to sell it to the municipality for R670,000. He was also paid a consolation fee of R35,100, removal costs of R5,000 and transfer duty of R43,700. But the cemetery was never built. The farm, left abandoned, fell into disrepair. 'The house, outbuildings, reservoirs and other infrastructure … have been vandalised and destroyed,' noted Judge Mbulelo Jolwana in his judgment. Smith first approached the court in 2008, arguing he had been coerced into the sale under a false pretext — that the land had been designated for use as a cemetery. When it was later found unsuitable for that use, he claimed the original agreement had no legal standing. That case was dismissed on the basis that his claim had prescribed, but he was granted leave to appeal. The parties then tried to settle the case. The agreed terms of the settlement included that the ownership of the property would be restored to Smith if he paid the municipality R3.6-million — the sale price plus interest. 'It was further agreed that Smith would pay an additional amount of R4.3-million as a contribution to the costs incurred by the municipality in the litigation before it was settled.' The municipality also made it a condition of settlement that one hectare of the land would be used to build a fire station. This was ratified by the Buffalo City council only in 2021, mostly due to delays brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. Smith then went to court to have the settlement made an order of court. On 6 June 2023, his attorney wrote a letter to the municipality's attorney, attaching the revised settlement agreement and requesting that it be signed and returned to him to facilitate its implementation. Smith's attorney further confirmed that he was holding in trust an amount of R7.4-million to be paid to the municipality in settlement. However, the municipal manager would not sign the settlement agreement. Smith went back to court, complaining that he had been prejudiced by ongoing delays and the municipality's failure to comply with the terms of the revised settlement agreement. 'Invalid' Buffalo City's municipal manager, Mxolisi Yawa, stated in papers before the court that the municipality was obliged to oppose the application to make the settlement an order of court. He said the council resolution confirming the settlement was 'invalid' because it did not comply with the Municipal Finance Management Act. Yawa argued that the only way Smith could get his farm back was to successfully sue the municipality. He said the council had to consider the fair market value of the property before arriving at a decision. 'It is important to point out that at no stage during the protracted settlement negotiations did [Yawa] communicate to Smith or his attorney that he questioned the validity of the settlement agreement or that he doubted its lawfulness,' said Judge Jolwana. 'It does not appear that he communicated his discomfort about the alleged non-compliance even with the municipality's own attorney. Instead, there was an unexplained failure to sign the settlement agreement, notwithstanding its formal endorsement thereof through a council resolution that to date is still extant. 'It was only when these proceedings were instituted that, in the answering affidavit, Yawa raised, for the very first time, his concerns about non-compliance with the Municipal Finance [Management] Act.' The judge said that in the documented history of the case, it had been pointed out that the property could not be used for the purpose for which it was acquired — the construction of a cemetery. He said the municipality has not made a case that it needed the property, apart from the portion for the establishment of a fire station. He said this was a restitution of the property and not a transfer as specified in the Municipal Finance Management Act. 'That any property may be expropriated for a legitimate public purpose is not controversial, at least if regard is had to the Constitution,' said Judge Jolwana. 'That legitimate public purpose was the establishment of a municipal cemetery in this case. It is common cause that it later transpired that the property was not suitable for that purpose after the registration of the transfer of the ownership of the property to the municipality had been finalised. 'The property was acquired by the municipality to alleviate its need for land that is suitable for the establishment of a municipal cemetery. Put differently, Smith was deprived of his right to ownership of the property through expropriation or threat thereof for that legitimate public purpose. The legitimate public purpose for which the applicant's right to have, to use and to keep the property was therefore infringed for a justifiable and legitimate public purpose and in the public interest. 'That was the understanding at the time Smith's property rights were infringed. Once that public purpose became unattainable, the consequent unlawfulness of Smith's deprivation of his property rights and the unconstitutionality of that entire process became fatally indefensible, leading to the entire edifice and rationale for the expropriation collapsing.' Judge Jolwana ordered that the settlement be made an order of court. He also made a punitive costs order against the municipality, reasoning that, '[Yawa] lamentably chose opaqueness when transparency was required. [He] decided to attempt to renege from the settlement agreement only when he received papers for this application, which it was agreed should be instituted. This he seems to have done without even presenting his views to the Buffalo City council. This, in circumstances in which the municipality's legal department had no difficulties with the lawfulness of the agreement.'
TimesLIVE
20-05-2025
- TimesLIVE
Sanef condemns threats to journalists who work professionally and ethically
The South African National Editors Forum (Sanef) has condemned actions of a Durban businessman who recently threatened a Sunday Times journalist who had called him for comment. Siqu Zungu allegedly threatened Sunday Times senior journalist Isaac Mahlangu when he was called for a comment for an article about him leaving a R12m penthouse owned by a Johannesburg doctor, Blaine Bloy, in which he lived rent-free for about three years before he was recently evicted. Zungu said the journalist should ensure that he gets bodyguards after writing the article about him. The businessman was evicted from a luxury Umhlanga penthouse, which he left with extensive damage, including a broken bathtub, cracked tiles and outstanding rent of more than R1m. When contacted for comment last week, he accused the publication of targeting him and said the journalist should get bodyguards. 'I am asking you to have bodyguards. Do you hear me? I am not joking. It is not a threat ... Ask Bloy who I am, he will tell you. Put out that article, but tell your company to give you bodyguards. 'You've targeted me. I will handle this myself. Maybe Bloy has not told you who I am. Maybe they have not told [you] what kind of life I live ... It's not your job to target a person like this,' he said. Slindile Khanyile, chair of the Sanef media freedom subcommittee said the organisation did not threats to journalists lightly, especially in a country where the work that journalists do and media freedom is protected by the constitution. 'So, we condemn the actions of not only this particular newsmaker, but anyone who makes it difficult for journalists to conduct their work,' she said. She added that Zungu was contacted for comment, which is one of the most important principles of journalism — to give newsmakers the opportunity to tell their side of the story and a fair opportunity to respond to allegations before a story is published. 'When journalists do that, which is something that is required by media ethics as well as the press code, and they then encounter newsmakers who make it difficult for them to do their work, it is unfortunate,' she added. She said journalists should always do the right thing even when reporting on threatening and aggressive people. 'Regardless of how a newsmaker may behave, journalists must always do the right thing by giving people the right to reply and being fair and be balanced in their reporting,' she said. The Sunday Times has reported the matter at the Hillbrow police station.
IOL News
19-05-2025
- IOL News
TikTok prank backfires: mother faces R35k fine for cracking egg on daughter's head
A Swedish mom was fined $2000 for cracking an egg on her daughter as part of a viral TikTok Trend. Image: Pexels. A Swedish mother has found herself facing legal consequences for participating in a notorious TikTok trend that involves cracking raw eggs on unsuspecting family members' heads. The 24-year-old mother was convicted of harassment after she filmed herself smashing an egg on her young daughter's forehead and then shared the video online. What might have been intended as a playful family moment now raises significant ethical questions about the use of children in viral stunts. Although the daughter did not initiate the complaint, an anonymous tip-off prompted authorities to investigate, culminating in a court ruling that deemed the act "degrading" and "reckless". Prosecutor Emma Olsson did not hold back in her condemnation of the prank, stating: "You simply don't do that to a child. To record and humiliate the child and then broadcast it to thousands of viewers … I find that incredibly degrading. It's a reckless act." Her words reflect a growing concern over the permissibility of using children as props in parental content, particularly in today's digital landscape, where viral trends can easily spiral out of control. The court agreed with Olsson's sentiments, ordering the mother to pay her daughter SEK 20,000 (approximately R35 000) in damages, however, the mother maintains that the stunt was common harmless fun. Critics are now scrutinising the implications of such pranks, with many debating whether children should be treated as vehicles for their parents' digital ambitions. Social media reactions to this case have been mixed, with some weighing in with empathy for children who have influencer parents. @tayja_moore stated, 'I feel bad for the kids with influencer moms that can't give consent to anything regardless of how 'innocent'.' @mariaryankadem said: "👏👏👏 this! The only cracking eggs content we should see is parents teaching kids to cook ❤️." @ wrote: "Sad that so many people exploit their children at the prospect of 'going viral'." Meanwhile, @austingizinski5 commented, "Too many soft people these days."
