Arrest McBride: report

Ipid head Robert McBride has been suspended.

Ipid head Robert McBride has been suspended.

Published May 3, 2015

Share

Johannesburg - The future of Robert McBride as head of Independent Police Directorate (Ipid) hangs in the balance as he could face charges of defeating the ends of justice.

An explosive report compiled by law firm Werksmans Attorneys has accused McBride of getting rid of evidence that implicated former Hawks boss Anwa Dramat and his colleagues in carrying out illegal renditions with their Zimbabwean counterparts.

The former Hawks boss was accused of facilitating the illegal rendition of Zimbabweans.

The Sunday Independent has seen a 74-four page report compiled by Werksmans Attorneys on behalf of Police Minister Nathi Nhleko that said it had been found that evidence implicating Dramat was deleted from Ipid’s initial report.

Ipid’s second report exonerating Dramat and the Gauteng head of Hawks, Major-General Shadrack Sibiya, was signed off by McBride as well as head of Ipid investigations Matthews Sesoko and investigating officer Innocent Khuba on March 18 last year. The three officials have denied deleting any evidence from the report.

Werksmans was appointed by Nhleko to investigate the discrepancies in the Ipid’s reports. Some of the far reaching recommendations include:

* That McBride be criminally charged for obstructing and defeating the ends of justice;

* That former Hawks head Dramat and Sibiya be charged for the illegal rendition of the Zimbabweans;

* That National Director of Public Prosecutions Mxolisi Nxasana be investigated for failing to charge Dramat and Sibiya.

McBride is on suspension and Dramat has resigned.

Police Commissioner Riah Phiyega told Parliament last week that police and Dramat had reached a settlement.

Although he is still in office, Nxasana is going to face a commission of inquiry into his fitness to hold office next Monday.

However, the Werksmans’ Report has thrown a spanner in the works.

According to evidence presented to Werksmans, Khuba has said he signed the last page of the second report once it was finalised and did not initialise each page “as such he would be incapable of knowing if any information was added or removed”. “Khuba later said he is strongly concerned about the removal of certain information, specifically the deletion of evidence which implicates Dramat.”

The report adds: “In the absence of any information as to which of the three co-signatories were responsible for the deletion of information from the first report, we recommend Khuba, McBride and Sesoko be charged criminally for defeating the ends of justice or obstructing the administration of justice, and that disciplinary charges be brought against them.”

The investigation found a large volume of information incriminating Dramat was removed from the original report.

“These portions of the first report which were removed have the effect of distancing Dramat… as his involvement with the rendition is concerned.”

McBride has apparently said he only made grammatical changes to the report and did not see the first report.

However, according to the Werksmans report, McBride’s version “is contradicted by Khuba who states McBride had seen the first report and had given input into the report which was not just grammatical”.

“The findings have also been altered to remove an analysis of evidence which may implicate Dramat or Sibiya.

The alteration of the recommendation seems to be a non sequitur (illogical) in light of the fact that the so-called additional information added to the second report does not appear to be capable of justifying an altered conclusion.”

 

Werksman Attorneys said in the absence of a valid explanation for the deletions by the report’s co-signatories, the only logical conclusion was that the “ the second report was created for the purpose of exonerating the high ranking officials, specifically Dramat and Sibiya who were implicated in the first report.”

The report also recommended Dramat and Sibiya be charged for kidnapping, and defeating ends of justice.

McBride’s lawyer Jacob Marais said: “He maintains that he has not misconducted himself in any respect.”

On January 22, 2014 Khuba submitted his final report to Advocates Anthony Mosing and Billy Moeletsi from the NPA’s Special Projects which provided guidance to the Ipid investigating team after he felt the investigation was completed.

Mosing then wrote an internal memorandum to Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions Nomgcobo Jiba and South Gauteng High Court Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Andrew Chauke indicating that “investigations were finalised.

The memorandum was accompanied by the Ipid’s rendition report, a docket comprising of two lever-arch files, together with files containing the cellphone data and evidence obtained from a computer belonging to the Hawks.

Chauke then handed the docket to Advocate Zaais Van Zyl. When McBride was appointed as the executive director of Ipid On March 3 last year, he requested an update of all high- profile matters that were being handled by Ipid, including the rendition saga. “On March 7, 2014, Khuba removed the docket from Van Zyl,”

Khuba stated he was instructed by McBride to retrieve the docket. Shortly afterwards, McBride, Khuba and Sesoko worked on the second report, which was handed to Nxasana.

On June 18 last year, Van Zyl called Khuba requesting the docket, however he said McBride had instructed him to return the docket to Nxasana.

In June, Van Zyl wrote a letter to Nxasana informing him that Khuba had said the docket was handed to him.

On July 3, Chauke wrote to Nxasana informing him about the sequence of events regarding the docket.

However, Nxasana responded to the letter indicating “he was in the process of considering the matter and Chauke may close his file.”

Werksmans has recommended the role of the NPA in dealing with the matter be investigated.

The law firm accused Nxasana of failing to take action following a recommendation made by Director of Public Prosecutions Sibongile Mzinyathi in March that Sibiya and Dramat be charged.

“The NDPP failed to take action in respect of the recommendation made by Mzinyathi on 13 March, 2015 but rather sent a docket back South Gauteng High Court DPP… to make a decision. This amounts to a review by Chauke of the recommendation by Mzinyathi.”

Werksman pointed out the NPA Act does not allows a DPP to review a decision by another DPP. “Interestingly, the NDPP is the only employee of the NPA involved in this matter who failed to meet us in response to our request to meet.”

 

Nxasana refused to comment.

The Sunday Independent

Related Topics: