By Nonkululeko Njilo | 5 October 2025
Allegations that the Phala Phala investigating officer threatened a key witness could throw the State’s case into turmoil, as the court prepares to decide whether crucial evidence can be trusted or if the investigation itself has been tainted.
In an explosive twist in the Phala Phala trial, a senior investigating officer was accused of threatening a State witness with promises to “ruin” his life, the Modimolle Magistrates’ Court heard on Friday, 3 October 2025.
The investigating officer, who cannot be named due to a court order, took the stand, not as an investigator, but as a witness after his own conduct was under scrutiny following an allegation that he had intimidated a witness into giving a false statement.
The alleged mastermind in the case is Imanuwela David, who is on trial with siblings Floriana and Ndilinasho Joseph. The three Namibians face charges of conspiracy to commit housebreaking with intent to steal and theft, two counts of housebreaking with intent to steal and theft, and, in David’s case, an additional charge of money laundering.
According to the witness, a security guard who also cannot be named, the officer warned him that lying would come at a cost.
“Do you see how damaged David’s [accused one] life is? If you want yours to be damaged, you’ll tell me lies… I’ll ruin your life,” the witness claimed the investigating officer said.
The witness told the court that the officer threatened to have him arrested, saying he would need to pay R10,000 bail, money he simply didn’t have on his salary.
The State applied for a trial within a trial after discrepancies emerged between the witness’s initial police statement and his testimony in court, particularly concerning whether he had transported the alleged mastermind, David, and the two others following the theft of $580,000 (about R8-million at the time) at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s farm.
The investigating officer denied the allegations of intimidation, telling the court that he and the witness had a warm and friendly relationship.
“Our relationship was very friendly and cordial. There was no animosity at all. We were completely friendly.”
Their relationship, he claimed, was so cordial that they once shared pies, a detail the witness confirmed.
“That is true, but I didn’t eat his pies because I didn’t trust him.”
The witness went on to tell the court that he is illiterate and never dictated any statement to the police. Instead, he said, he was handed a written document to sign, one he could not read or understand.
“I did sign the statement, but I never understood what was written and he never read it to me.”
He said the officer instructed him never to show the statement to anyone. But days later, he took it to someone who could read English and discovered statements he had never made.
The investigating officer, however, disputed his version of events, saying that he and his colleague spent several hours with the witness, typing his statement on his laptop, after which the witness was given a copy.
“If he wanted to change or amend his affidavit, the opportunity was there,” the investigating officer said.
The trial within a trial is set to continue on Monday, 6 October 2025.
Cars bought in dollars
Before the trial within a trial the court heard from another witness, who is a salesman at a car dealership in Johannesburg.
This particular witness’s testimony shed light on how almost half of the allegedly stolen $580,000 was spent buying high-end cars, including two Porsches, a Mercedes-Benz G-Wagon, a Golf 7 GTI and a Polo.
The first Porsche was crushed within a matter of hours after it was purchased, allegedly because the accused’s driving was not the best.
He bought another one for R1.2-million in a matter of days. Each vehicle was paid for separately, using dollars. The value of the cars was: two cars for R1.2-million each, and others for R450,000, R350,000 and R150,000.
Attorney Koena Matlala, representing David, sought to undermine the witness’s credibility by questioning his understanding of where the dollars originated. The witness initially said he did not know the currency’s source but later clarified that they were from the US.
Matlala also challenged the authenticity of the statement, given that the witness himself had not concluded the car sales, which were finalised by his director.
The said director will also be called to testify, not only about the car transactions, but also his involvement in helping the accused exchange the dollars for rands.
Prosecutor Nkhetheni Munyai also pressed the dealership employee on whether he found it unusual that the transactions were conducted in US dollars and if he had ever questioned the source of the buyer’s funds.
“Yes, I did your worship,” he told the court. He revealed that David said he was a “diamond dealer” moving stones between Namibia and Cape Town.
Picture of secrecy
The court also heard from the manager of Ramaphosa’s farm. His testimony painted a picture of secrecy.
The farm manager told the court he had no knowledge of the unusual sale of 20 buffalo in foreign currency in the property.
Under cross-examination by defence advocate Relleng Masipa, he was asked directly: “Did you know anything about foreign currency?”
His answer was: “Nothing at all.”
The manager recalled how, sometime in February, he was called by the housekeeper who suspected there was a break-in at Ramaphosa’s main house, where the dollars were stashed inside a couch and cushions.
He testified that after going to the house, he discovered clear evidence of a break-in and immediately notified the president. Ramaphosa, he testified, assured him that the police would be dispatched.
But the court has since heard that no official case was ever registered at the Bela Bela Police Station. When asked why, the manager said he had left the matter “to the president’s discretion”.
Daily Maverick reported earlier that the acting manager of Phala Phala had testified that he informed Ramaphosa about the buffalo sale, to which the president allegedly replied that he would “attend to it” upon return from holiday.
The acting manager further confirmed that one of the accused, Floriana, was a temporary cleaner, who was usually called in when there were big events or guest visits, on the farm during the period of the alleged theft. But, he said, there were no events scheduled at that time, and he had not been informed of her presence by the acting manager, at least until he returned from leave.
The court also heard from another witness, a bus service operator who testified that the trio had in fact bought tickets from Cape Town to Johannesburg and later driven to Limpopo days before the commission of the crime.
It is the State’s contention that the trio does not reside in either Gauteng or Limpopo but travelled specifically for the commission of the crime.
When proceedings resume on Monday, 6 October 2025 the court is expected to decide whether the witness’s statement will be admitted as evidence, a ruling that could significantly shape the State’s case.
Still unanswered are critical questions: who authorised the use of foreign currency on the farm, why the alleged theft was never officially reported, and whether key evidence may have been compromised in the process. DM
