Senzo Mchunu denounces raids on his homes as illegal ‘fishing expeditions’ - TimesLIVE

Suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu says a search warrant used to raid his properties was obtained through misleading information and without proper legal authority.

In papers filed in the Johannesburg high court, Mchunu accuses KwaZulu-Natal crime detection officer Brig William Kunene of abusing the warrant process, unlawfully accessing electronic devices handed over during an earlier police operation and seizing a cellphone that was not included in the warrant.

Mchunu is asking the court to set aside a search warrant issued on September 21, arguing that the application failed to disclose material information and did not establish the legal basis for searches conducted at properties in KwaZulu-Natal under a warrant issued in Gauteng.

“The warrant is invalid as the affidavit in support of it does not place facts showing the existence of a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed,” says the application, filed on Tuesday.

Mchunu has been under suspicion since July last year when KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi accused him of receiving financial support from businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala and of disbanding the political killings task team (PKTT) due to his proximity to a drug syndicate. Mchunu has dismissed the claims as “wild allegations”.

The warrant authorised searches at four properties associated with Mchunu, one in Pretoria, two in Empangeni and one in Brakfontein in the AbaQulusi area of rural KwaZulu-Natal.

Mchunu argues that the supporting affidavit in the search warrant application “does not place facts showing the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that my device is connected to the alleged offences”.

He also challenges the jurisdiction under which the warrant was issued, arguing that the Gauteng High Court cannot authorise searches in another province without the requirements of the Cybercrimes Act being properly addressed.

At the crux of his complaint is an earlier search led by Kunene at his official Pretoria residence on October 9 2025. Mchunu says he asked to see the warrant but was not shown it. He claims he only became aware of its contents on November 13, when it was attached to Kunene’s answering affidavit in another court application.

That warrant covered properties in Bryanston, Empangeni and Pretoria. An urgent court application arising from the operation was eventually settled at the court door and removed from the roll by agreement.

Mchunu says he agreed to hand over electronic devices without conceding that the warrant was lawful. The agreement was explicit about how the devices were to be handled. “[The devices] would be sealed and only opened on a date mutually agreed and in my attorneys’ presence.”

Mchunu alleges the arrangement was not honoured and that the devices were opened and their contents downloaded without notice to him and without his lawyers being present.

He argues that the warrant authorising the seizure of devices did not give investigators unlimited authority to access and extract their contents, and that further judicial authorisation was required for the forensic examination undertaken.

The dispute over the devices also addresses Kunene’s allegations that Mchunu had supplied replacement cellphones to frustrate the investigation.

Mchunu disputes this, saying the original warrant did not identify the devices by their international mobile equipment identity numbers (IMEIs). He argues that the forensic report relied on by Kunene does not establish that he supplied replacement devices but instead records that only a limited number of handsets were recovered.

“The fact that the fishing expedition has not yielded any catch does not mean I provided a replacement device.”

He says he co-operated with investigators and provided the devices requested, arguing that the absence of certain handsets cannot be treated as proof that he deliberately substituted them.

The affidavit also challenges allegations about his relationship with Matlala and former political fixer Brown Mogotsi.

Mchunu says communications between him and the two men took place after his December 31 2024 directive concerning the disbanding of the PKTT had been communicated to national police commissioner Gen Fannie Masemola and subsequently leaked to the media.

“I never communicated the directive to Mogotsi or Matlala,” he says, adding that the material placed before court does not establish that he had criminal dealings with them.

Mchunu argues that the investigation has failed to produce documentary evidence, witness statements or telephone records demonstrating that he communicated with either man about the directive or acted improperly in relation to the task team.

“There is not a shred of evidence.”

A substantial part of the affidavit is devoted to defending his decision to disband the PKTT, which became a central issue after Mkhwanazi publicly accused him of interfering with its work.

The suspended minister says the directive was issued in the exercise of his constitutional and ministerial powers and was not an instruction to abandon investigations into political killings.

He points to correspondence from Masemola dated January 22 2025, which acknowledged the directive and set out plans for an orderly winding-down process. The police commissioner’s report also made clear that the police would continue to investigate unresolved cases.

According to Mchunu, 128 case dockets were retained for finalisation, undermining any suggestion that his directive required the immediate abandonment of the investigations.

A separate dispute has arisen over a cellphone seized during the September operation. Mchunu says the device’s IMEI number did not correspond to the number specified in the warrant and that he raised the discrepancy with Kunene at the time. According to Mchunu’s affidavit, Kunene told him to raise the issue in court.

He is asking for the cellphone to be returned, alongside an order setting aside the September warrant and preventing further warrants from being obtained without his attorneys being given notice.

Mchunu says the searches and the manner in which his electronic devices have been handled have infringed on his privacy and dignity, and that the harm cannot simply be undone. “I am not seeking impunity from the law. I have co-operated with Brig Kunene in the past, but the harassment and humiliation simply continues.”