THE UNLAWFUL SEIZURE & PREMISE FOR THE ARREST

NOTE: Due to the content heavy nature of the information, this website has not been designed for and may not view well on mobile phones or small screens.

INTRODUCTION: The Unlawful Use of a Seizure Warrant as a Pretext for Arrest

From the outset, it is crucial to establish that no arrest warrant ever existed. The SAPS officers involved never had legal authorization to detain me. Instead, they used a seizure warrant as a pretext to conduct an arrest—something both unlawful and procedurally indefensible.

A seizure warrant is strictly intended for confiscating property. It does not confer the authority to arrest, interrogate, or detain an individual. Despite this clear legal distinction, SAPS officers treated it as a blank cheque to carry out an arrest they knew had been denied by magistrates.

Repeated Judicial Rejections Of The Arrest Warrant Application

Sergeant Stevens applied for both a seizure warrants and, presumably, an arrest warrant before a magistrate. The first magistrate rejected the application outright. Rather than addressing the evidentiary deficiencies, he presented the same case to another magistrate, hoping for a different outcome. The second magistrate also rejected the request, reinforcing that there was no legal basis for an arrest.

This means SAPS had two explicit refusals from the judiciary. At this point, they had two lawful choices: either strengthen their case with proper evidence or drop the arrest attempt. Instead, they deliberately circumvented the law.

Rather than comply with these rulings, SAPS sought an alternative route to execute their operation. They exploited an internal approval process that allowed them to sign off on a seizure warrant themselves—bypassing the need for judicial oversight.

FACT FILE

THE CONSORTIUM

A seizure warrant allows police to confiscate specific property—it does not authorize an arrest. SAPS internally approved the seizure warrant, avoiding judicial oversight. The warrant was issued under false pretenses, claiming the case was urgent, despite the fact that the complaint was a year old and SAPS had taken no action for months. This was a deliberate procedural abuse intended to facilitate an unlawful arrest.

Circumventing the Court's Authority: The Internal Approval for a Seizure Warrant

Instead of investigating further or obtaining the required legal authorization, SAPS exploited an internal approval process to secure a seizure warrant.

Sergeant Stevens had his superior officer sign off on the seizure warrant, bypassing judicial oversight.

This was done only after magistrates refused to approve the arrest, showing that SAPS was not acting on legal grounds but rather seeking a workaround.

To justify this internal sign-off, they falsely claimed the seizure was urgent and necessary—despite the fact that:

The case had been inactive for a full year.

The only prior "evidence" had been introduced by Paula Disberry six months earlier.

No new developments had taken place that would justify a sudden emergency.

There was no immediate risk of destruction of evidence.

I had lived in the same location for over a year and posed no flight risk.

SAPS already had my passport, making it impossible for me to flee.

Had this been a legitimate investigation, SAPS would have obtained judicial approval through the proper channels. Instead, they manipulated internal procedures to authorize an operation that had been explicitly denied twice by the courts.

The Seizure Warrant Does Not Authorise an Arrest—And It Never Has

A seizure warrant allows only for the confiscation of specific property listed on the warrant. It does not authorize the arrest, detention, or interrogation of an individual. The Criminal Procedure Act (1977) makes it clear that a seizure warrant, and an arrest warrant are separate legal instruments that must be independently justified and approved.

Despite this, SAPS officers detained me as if the seizure warrant justified it. It did not.

FACT FILE

THE CONSORTIUM

SAPS seized my devices not to investigate a crime but to search for one. If SAPS had real evidence of fraud, they would have interviewed me upon arrest, gathered statements from alleged victims, and promptly examined my devices—but they did none of these things, even after 18 months. The purpose of the seizure was not to investigate fraud, but to fabricate charges and disable my legal defense.

An Unlawful Arrest Disguised as a Seizure Operation

Had SAPS followed legal procedures, they would have:

Obtained a magistrate-approved arrest warrant.

Executed the arrest based on lawful authority.

Secured a separate seizure warrant for evidence collection if required.

Instead, they:

Used an internal sign-off to bypass judicial rejection.

Pretended the seizure warrant permitted my detention.

Carried out an arrest without a magistrate’s approval.

This was not a lawful police operation—it was a coordinated, unlawful detention designed to sidestep the law and serve the interests of the landlords.

The Identical Docket Was Shopped Around Until SAPS Got the Answer They Wanted

Even if an arrest warrant had existed, it would still have been unlawful. Why?

SAPS applied for an arrest warrant and were rejected.

Instead of strengthening their case, they took the same docket to another magistrate.

When that magistrate also refused, SAPS ignored the ruling and proceeded with an internal workaround.

This is a serious procedural violation—the law does not allow law enforcement to take the same case to multiple magistrates until they get approval.

If an application is rejected, the only lawful option is to either gather more evidence or drop the case.

SAPS did neither—they simply forced the process forward despite being denied authorization twice.

This completely undermines the purpose of judicial oversight and proves that SAPS was acting without legal authority.

FACT FILE

CORRUPTION & CRIMINALITY

The timing of my arrest directly benefited the landlords in their High Court dispute. Had they won their case, there would have been no arrest. But when they lost, my arrest followed immediately, conveniently removing me before they filed their appeal, which was submitted the very next morning. This was not a legitimate criminal investigation; it was a coordinated legal attack.

No Legal Justification for the Arrest Under the Seizure Warrant

There is no record of any further attempt to obtain an arrest warrant after securing the internally approved seizure warrant. The arrest was carried out anyway, under the false justification of the seizure warrant. This was:

A complete misuse of legal procedures, as a seizure warrant does not authorise an arrest.

A direct violation of due process, given that magistrates had already rejected the arrest application.

A deliberate attempt to deceive—treating the seizure warrant as if it inherently permitted detention.

The Seizure Warrant as a Smokescreen

By obtaining an illegal seizure warrant, SAPS was able to:

Conduct the operation under the pretence of a lawful action.

Circumvent the repeated denials of an arrest warrant by magistrates.

Mask the true intention—to detain me despite having no lawful authority to do so.

This confirms that SAPS was acting without judicial authorization and had no legal grounds for my detention. The seizure warrant was not used for its intended legal purpose but rather as a backdoor mechanism to execute an unlawful arrest.

FACT FILE

CORRUPTION & CRIMINALITY

SAPS deployed a fully armed SWAT team (Special Task Force) to raid my home—not to search for evidence, but to search for cash and diamonds. Nearly 20 officers from multiple divisions took part, an excessive show of force for a mere fraud allegation. This was not a legitimate police investigation; it was an intimidation operation.

JUSTICE 3i_edited_edited_edited_edited_edited.jpg

CONSEQUENCES AND IMPLICATIONS

The Consequences of an Unlawful Arrest

The absence of an arrest warrant is not just a procedural error—it is a direct violation of my constitutional rights:

I was unlawfully detained without judicial approval.
I was removed from my home under false pretences.
I was never informed of any valid legal basis for my arrest.
I was deprived of my freedom without due process.

This is a clear case of wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, and the SAPS officers responsible must be held accountable under the law. Their actions were not only unlawful but also deliberate, knowing full well that no arrest warrant had been issued.

The Unlawfulness of the Arrest Under South African Law

The misuse of the seizure warrants to justify an arrest was not merely a procedural failure, it was unlawful under South African law.

Under Section 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977):

A seizure warrant grants no power of arrest.

An arrest requires a separate judicially authorised arrest warrant.

Even in urgent cases, SAPS officers must obtain judicial oversight before detaining a suspect.

By arresting me without a valid arrest warrant—after magistrates had explicitly rejected their applications, SAPS engaged in wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, violating both South African criminal procedure and constitutional protections.

Furthermore, under Section 35(1) of the Constitution of South Africa, every arrested person has the right:

To be informed of the reason for their detention.
To challenge the lawfulness of their arrest.
Not to be deprived of their freedom arbitrarily.

SAPS knowingly proceeded without an arrest warrant, demonstrating an intentional and unlawful violation of my rights. This was not a mistake—it was a premeditated abuse of power.

FACT FILE

CORRUPTION & CRIMINALITY

SAPS falsely claimed my arrest was urgent because I was a flight risk—yet they knew that was impossible. I had lived at the same address for over a year and had never spent more than two nights outside my area. SAPS had already illegally taken my passport and even stolen the replacement. There was no urgency, no risk of flight, and no valid reason for an immediate seizure.

Legal Action & Next Steps: Holding SAPS Accountable

SAPS has been given multiple opportunities to return my property and justify their actions. They have refused to comply. The following legal actions remain available:

A High Court Application for a Mandamus Order

This would compel SAPS to immediately return all unlawfully retained property.

2. A Civil Claim for Wrongful Arrest & False Imprisonment

Since my arrest was carried out without a valid arrest warrant, SAPS can be held liable for wrongful arrest and damages.

3. A Formal Complaint to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID)

IPID investigates SAPS abuse of power, unlawful detentions, and misconduct.

4. A Damages Claim for Financial Loss

The unlawful seizure forced me to spend thousands replacing my equipment, while SAPS continued to hold over R100,000 worth of my property.

5. A Constitutional Challenge for Violation of Rights

SAPS' actions violated my constitutional right to freedom and due process under Section 35 of the Bill of Rights.

While litigation requires financial resources, SAPS' conduct makes them highly likely to be found liable. A court order could force compliance, exposing their misconduct and ensuring accountability.

FACT FILE

THE CONSORTIUM

I was held at the police station for nearly a week, far beyond the legal 24–48 hours. Although bail was granted at my hearing, SAPS falsely claimed additional charges to block my release. The investigating officer lied, alleging five new charges and raising a false flight risk concern. The prosecution, which had initially not opposed bail, abruptly withdrew its approval, resulting in my continued detention. The magistrate then unlawfully revoked bail without any new charges being filed.

FALSE CLAIMS OF URGENCY:

HOW SAPS JUSTIFIED THE ILLEGAL SEIZURE

Once SAPS had internally approved the seizure warrant, bypassing judicial oversight, the next step was to justify it. Since no new evidence or developments had occurred, SAPS had to fabricate urgency to support their claim that an immediate seizure was necessary.

1. No Genuine Urgency Existed

By law, a seizure warrant can only be granted under certain conditions, one of which is that the evidence cannot be obtained in any other way and is at risk of destruction or loss. However, in this case:

The original complaint was filed a full year earlier, in December 2021.

The case had been classified as a civil dispute and dismissed by the investigating officer at the time.

For six months, there had been zero new developments, other than a brief surge in activity from Paula Disberry in June, but nothing from SAPS themselves.

There was no pending event or reason for immediate action, no new investigation, no fresh evidence, and no indication of evidence being at risk.

If an immediate seizure was necessary, why did SAPS do nothing for an entire year?

2. The Sudden Date of Action: A Convenient Timing for the Landlords

The timing of the warrant and arrest directly aligns with the landlords’ legal strategy, rather than any law enforcement necessity:

The seizure warrant was applied for on 13 December 2022.

The arrest and raid were carried out on 14 December 2022.

This happened immediately after the landlords received the High Court ruling against them, which meant they had failed to reclaim the properties through legal means.

Had the High Court ruled in their favor, there would have been no need for an arrest.

The very next morning, on 15 December, Keith Broad submitted his appeal—after I was conveniently out of the way in detention.

The timing was not a coincidence—it was a coordinated legal attack, masked as a criminal operation.

FACT FILE

THE CONSORTIUM

Magistrates rejected SAPS' request for an arrest warrant twice due to a complete lack of evidence. Instead of accepting the ruling, SAPS proceeded with an illegal arrest by misusing a seizure warrant, which does not authorize arrests under any circumstances. The case docket was effectively empty, containing no legitimate SAPS investigative work—only affidavits from the landlords, the very people orchestrating the campaign against me. This was not a police-led investigation. This was a private agenda executed with SAPS backing.

3. No Risk of Flight or Evidence Destruction

For SAPS to claim an urgent need for seizure, they would have needed to prove that I:

Was about to flee.
Was about to destroy evidence.

Neither of these claims holds up:

I had lived in the same location (Fisherman’s Bend) for over a year.
I had never spent more than two nights outside my area in that time.
SAPS had already seized my passport, making it impossible for me to flee.
SAPS had also stolen my replacement passport, preventing any escape attempts.
There had been no requests for information or cooperation from SAPS, despite my full compliance with every legal requirement after the first arrest.
There had been no previous attempt to seize my equipment, despite four months passing since the first illegal arrest.

The only urgency was that the landlords needed me out of the way for their legal case.

4. Misrepresenting the Seizure Warrant as Necessary for an Investigation

SAPS knew the case was weak, and they knew there was no evidence. Instead of conducting an actual investigation, they:

Used the seizure warrant as a fishing expedition, hoping to find something incriminating.

Attempted to justify the warrant by claiming the devices were necessary to build a case, despite magistrates already rejecting the case twice.

Ignored the fact that multiple parties (ADR, Johan Schalkwyk, Denis Dalton, Mario Boffa) had already had access to my devices and data for two months and found nothing.

Overlooked the fact that ADR had already stolen and downloaded my data and passed it to SAPS collaborators.

The reality is clear: the seizure was not about investigation, it was about suppression.

5. Summary: A Manufactured Justification

There was no urgency.
There was no pending investigation requiring an immediate seizure.
There was no risk of flight or evidence destruction.
The timing matched the landlords’ legal manoeuvre, not any legitimate criminal investigation.
SAPS misrepresented the situation to justify an unlawful seizure and arrest.

FACT FILE

THE CONSORTIUM

Unable to obtain an arrest warrant, SAPS internally approved a seizure warrant, bypassing judicial oversight. The urgency they claimed was completely fabricated—the complaints were a year old, SAPS had ignored the case for months, and I had lived at the same address the entire time. They knew I wasn’t fleeing—because they had already taken my passport. Yet, they falsely framed the situation as an emergency to justify an unlawful operation. The seizure warrant was never about evidence. It was a smokescreen for an arrest they had no legal grounds to execute.

THE REAL REASON FOR THE SEIZURE AND RETENTION OF MY EQUIPMENT

The true purpose behind the seizure of my equipment was not to investigate fraud, nor to preserve evidence. Instead, SAPS officers—particularly Sergeant Stevens and Wouter de Swardt—acted in collusion with the landlords to:

Find something—anything—that could be used to justify an arrest.
Remove my ability to defend myself in both criminal and civil proceedings.
Assist the landlords in taking back properties they had already failed to reclaim through legal means.

This was not an evidence-driven seizure. It was a strategic move to disable me legally, financially, and logistically.

The Fishing Expedition: Searching for a Crime Instead of Investigating One

By the time of the second arrest, SAPS had already failed to produce any evidence to justify charges. Instead of conducting a legitimate investigation, they:

Seized my devices in the hope of finding something incriminating.
Used the confiscation of my data as leverage to weaken my defence.
Kept my property indefinitely—despite dropping the charges—ensuring I had no access to crucial evidence for my own legal battles.

This is what is known as a fishing expedition—an illegal and unconstitutional practice where law enforcement seizes property without probable cause, hoping to uncover something after the fact.

Had SAPS believed I was actually engaged in fraud, they would have:

Questioned me upon arrest. (They didn’t.)
Attempted to interview me at any point in detention. (They didn’t.)
Sought statements from other alleged victims. (They didn’t.)
Immediately examined the seized devices to pursue the case. (They didn’t, even after 18 months.)

Instead, SAPS did none of the above, because they were never looking for evidence of fraud. They were looking for an excuse to keep me detained.

2. Removing My Ability to Defend Myself in Court

The seizure of my equipment was not just about finding evidence, it was about silencing my ability to fight back.

Every legal document, every email, every contract, and every piece of financial data I needed to defend myself was on those devices.
SAPS knew that by taking them, they were crippling my ability to respond to legal proceedings, both criminal and civil.
They also knew that most attorneys would not invest the time or resources required to reconstruct my case without access to these files.

By seizing my equipment, SAPS achieved what the landlords couldn’t do in court—render me defenseless.

Even after the charges were withdrawn, SAPS continued to refuse to return my property, proving that the goal was never investigation but suppression.

3. The Landlords’ Interest in the Seizure: A Coordinated Attack

The timing of the seizure warrant and my arrest aligns exactly with the landlords' legal maneuvers.
Had they won their High Court case, there would have been no arrest.
When they lost, the arrest happened immediately.
Their appeal was filed the morning after I was detained—ensuring I was out of the way.

This was not an independent police investigation—it was a coordinated legal attack, assisted by corrupt SAPS officers.

FACT FILE

THE CONSORTIUM

A fully armed Special Task Force (SWAT team) stormed my home, an excessive show of force for an alleged fraud case. Nearly 20 officers from multiple SAPS divisions participated—not to secure evidence but to search for cash and diamonds, as openly discussed during the raid. This was never a legitimate police operation. It was intimidation, asset stripping, and a blatant abuse of police resources for private gain.

THE REAL REASON FOR THE SEIZURE AND RETENTION OF MY EQUIPMENT

1. Why Was My Equipment Never Returned?

Once the charges were dropped, SAPS had no legal basis to continue holding my property. Yet, they still refused to return it.

Had this been a legitimate seizure, SAPS would have:

Copied the drives for forensic analysis and returned the equipment.
Stored data securely while giving me access to personal and business records.
Allowed independent oversight of the evidence to ensure fairness.

Instead, they:

Kept my devices indefinitely, without a court order.
Offered no explanation for why they continued to hold them.
Used the delay to permanently damage my ability to fight back legally.

Even after the bogus immigration charge was dropped, SAPS still refused to return my property. Their response? "Sue us for it."

2. Everything Should Have Been Returned When the Charges Were Dropped ed

By law, when charges are withdrawn or dismissed, any seized property that is not being used as evidence in an active case must be returned to its rightful owner.

The fraud charges were withdrawn in March 2023.
No new charges were brought against me.
There was no ongoing investigation requiring retention of my property.

Yet, SAPS refused to return my:

Two laptops.

Three iPhones.

Two backup drives.

All my business and personal documents.

They had no legal grounds to keep any of it.

FACT FILE

THE CONSORTIUM

The fraud charges were withdrawn in March 2023, yet SAPS still refuses to return my equipment—despite having no case against me. Their excuses changed repeatedly: first, they claimed it was still under investigation, then they tried to justify it with a bogus immigration charge, which was also withdrawn. SAPS continues to illegally hold over R100,000 worth of my property, even after formal demands for its return. Their response? “Sue us for it.” This is not just misconduct—it is outright theft, carried out under the guise of law enforcement.

3. SAPS Used False Justifications to Retain My Property

After the fraud charges were dropped, SAPS had to come up with an excuse to continue holding my devices.

First, they claimed they were still investigating, which was: ❌ False. There was no ongoing investigation. The case was closed.

Then, they attempted to justify it using the bogus immigration charge, which was: ❌ Also false. That charge was also withdrawn.

Even after every single excuse had collapsed, SAPS still refused to return my property. Their response? "Sue us for it."

4. Financial and Personal Damage: Forced to Replace What SAPS Kept

Because SAPS unlawfully retained my devices, I was forced to:

Buy a new laptop.
Buy a new phone.
Rebuild lost data, files, and records from scratch.

All of this was completely unnecessary, SAPS was holding over R100,000 worth of my equipment while I struggled to replace it.

The financial burden came at a time when I could least afford it, making it clear that this was not just about seizing property, it was about inflicting harm.

FACT FILE

THE CONSORTIUM

5. The Deliberate Strategy: Keeping the Threat of Another Arrest Alive

Even after all charges were withdrawn, SAPS continued to hold my property to keep me vulnerable.

Without access to my documents and data, I was weakened in any legal action against them.
If they wanted to fabricate more charges, they could still claim they were "analysing" my devices.
By keeping my equipment, they left the door open for further harassment.

This was not an evidence-based seizure, it was an ongoing campaign to prevent me from regaining control of my life.

6. Legal Recourse: Why a Lawsuit Shouldn’t Be Necessary

If SAPS was following the law, I would not have to take legal action to recover my property.

The law requires them to return seized property once charges are dropped.
They have no legitimate claim to continue holding my devices.
They have ignored formal demands for their return.

Taking this to court would almost certainly result in:

A court order compelling SAPS to return everything.
A costs order against the state, forcing taxpayers to cover SAPS' misconduct.

However, the reality is that a lawsuit requires R100,000+ in legal fees—which is exactly what SAPS is counting on to prevent accountability.

7. Summary

All charges were dropped, yet SAPS still refused to return my equipment.
They used false justifications to retain it.
I was forced to replace what they kept, at great personal cost.
They deliberately left the threat of another arrest open.
Their refusal to return my property is purely about suppression and control.

FACT FILE

THE CONSORTIUM

At my bail hearing, I was initially granted bail at R2,000—but before I could leave, the investigating officer falsely claimed there were five additional charges. No new evidence was presented. No formal charges were filed. The prosecution, which initially had no objection to bail, suddenly opposed it. In an unlawful move, the magistrate withdrew the bail ruling on the spot. Instead of releasing me and filing new charges separately, SAPS invented additional allegations in real-time to block my release.

THE MULTI-LAYERED ILLEGALITY: A CHAIN OF VIOLATIONS FROM START TO FINISH

At every step of the process, SAPS officers violated multiple laws and procedures, each unlawful act compounding the next, turning what should have been a standard legal process into a fully coordinated, criminal abuse of power.

The illegality runs in layers:

1. The Case Itself Had No Legal Basis

The docket was effectively empty—SAPS had added nothing to it over the course of a year.
The arrest was not a police-led investigation but initiated by private individuals (the landlords).
The fraud claims had already been dismissed as civil disputes, meaning there was no legitimate criminal case to pursue.

2. The Arrest Warrant Was Illegally Pursued

SAPS applied for an arrest warrant and were rejected.
Instead of strengthening their case, they took the same docket to another magistrate—which is unlawful.
That magistrate also rejected their request.
Rather than accept the judicial rulings, SAPS sought an internal workaround to bypass the court system entirely.

3. The Seizure Warrant Was Illegally Approved Internally

A seizure warrant must be issued by a magistrate, yet SAPS signed it off internally unlawful.
They lied about urgency to justify this, despite having had a full year to act.
They knew I could not flee—they had already illegally taken my passport and replacement passport.
The property was never at risk—yet SAPS falsely claimed evidence could be lost to manufacture urgency.

4. The Seizure Warrant Was Used to Justify an Illegal Arrest

SAPS then executed an arrest based on a seizure warrant—which is legally impossible.
This means my entire detention was unlawful from the moment it happened.

5. The Use of Special Forces & Excessive Force Was Unwarranted

A fully armed SWAT team (Special Task Force) was used—not to search for evidence, but to search for cash and diamonds.
20+ officers from multiple divisions and stations participated—completely unnecessary for an alleged fraud case.

6. Extended Unlawful Detention

I was held for almost a week at the police station, rather than the legal 24-48 hours.
At my first bail hearing, I was granted bail—but SAPS fabricated additional charges to block my release.
The investigating officer falsely claimed there were five more charges, misleading the magistrate.
The prosecution illegally withdrew my bail approval, something that is not permitted under South African law.

7. Illegal Detention in Pollsmoor Prison

I was held for months in Pollsmoor, despite no legitimate case against me.
Every time I appeared before a magistrate, SAPS lied to keep me inside, including:
Falsely claiming there would be money laundering charges.
Falsely claiming they needed bank and phone records—a full year after the alleged fraud.

8. Bogus Immigration Charges Added at the Last Minute

When it became clear the fraud case was collapsing, SAPS added a fabricated immigration charge.
The charge was based on me not leaving South Africa three months after my arrival, despite:
COVID-era visa extensions applying to all foreigners.
SAPS already knowing I had extended my visa legally.
SAPS having my passport, proving my legal status.

9. SAPS Refused to Release the Docket, Hiding the Lack of Evidence

For months, SAPS refused to provide the docket, making it impossible to prepare a defence.
When we finally got access, the docket was almost completely empty proving there had never been a real case.
The only evidence in the docket came from the landlords themselves—the same people who hired these SAPS officers to execute illegal evictions disguised as arrests.

10. Coordinated Unlawful Arrests Beyond Just Me

The housekeeper and property manager were also arrested illegally, in a clear intimidation tactic.
These additional detentions were also entirely unlawful.

FACT FILE

THE PORTFOLIO

This Was Never Just One Violation—It Was a Layered, Systematic Abuse of Power

Every single action taken by SAPS was unlawful.
Each layer of illegality compounded the next, making the entire operation even more unlawful.
SAPS officers knew what they were doing was illegal—and proceeded anyway.
The landlords weaponised SAPS, knowing they would be protected from accountability.
This case highlights the broader systemic failure in South Africa’s law enforcement accountability.

THE BIGGER PICTURE: A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS POLICE CRIMINALITY TO GO UNPUNISHED

This case isn’t just about my own unlawful arrest and property seizure—it exposes a systemic failure in South Africa. SAPS officers acted with full confidence that they could violate the law without consequence because:

The system for police accountability is broken.

Even if victims report police crimes, they are rarely investigated.

Even if investigated, police crimes rarely lead to prosecution.

Even if prosecuted, convictions are almost nonexistent.

Even if convicted, SAPS officers receive lenient or no sentences.

If law enforcement officers know they can commit crimes without risk, then police criminality becomes inevitable—which is exactly what happened here.

This is why the landlords weaponised SAPS officers for their campaign—because it gave them impunity.
They turned illegal evictions into “criminal investigations.”
They made false charges look legitimate by getting SAPS to execute them.
They knew that even if everything was exposed, the system would protect them.

Re The December arrest: "He has now been arrested on more fraud charges as more victims have come to the fore.”

This was entirely false. The arrest was not the second for fraud and no new victims had come fgorward.

"The corruption of the best things gives rise to the worst."

David Hume