ACC RAIDS EMPLOYEE’S HOME, OFFICE, ITEMS SEIZED

MBABANE - The ACC has been taken to court by one of its employees after investigators from the institution raided his home and office, where they seized items belonging to him and his wife.

Bonginkhosi Dlamini, who is employed as an assistant investigator by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), is reportedly being investigated by his colleagues. Dlamini told the High Court that during the raid, which he described as unlawful, his colleagues took a number of gadgets and documents belonging to him and his wife, Nonduduzo Shongwe. The ACC officers, according to Dlamini, informed him that they were investigating him for suspected corruption.  The couple has since moved an application at the High Court, where they are seeking an order setting aside the search warrant that was issued at the Mbabane Magistrates Court on March 14, 2024.  

Seized

They also entreated the court to direct the ACC to return all the seized items, including copies of all documents that were taken by the investigators, in terms of the warrant. Respondents in the matter are the ACC, attorney general (AG) and the director of public prosecutions (DPP).  In their application, Dlamini narrated that on March 15, 2024, four officers from the ACC approached him at his home and produced a warrant, which was signed by a magistrate on March 14, 2024. He stated that the investigators from the ACC were led by Sifiso Khumalo.
“They first searched my home in Mbabane then my office at the Anti-Corruption Commission, then my home again and they seized items and documents purportedly on the strength of the warrant,” submitted Dlamini.

He brought it to the court’s attention that he previously owned and operated two companies, Red Heart Investments and Deep Gold Investments. The deponent (Dlamini) pointed out that Red Heart Investments was in the business of supplying stationery and had now ventured into construction. He claimed to have resigned from Deep Gold Investment in 2023. According to Dlamini, the search warrant was issued in terms of Section 46 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 67/1938. He submitted that according to the warrant, the officers were allowed to search the government house he was occupying, office desk at his work (ACC), house at Madlangampisi, offices at Red Heart Investments (Mitsini Complex at Sidwashini), offices at Deep Gold Investments at Cooper Centre and his motor vehicle.

He submitted that the warrant also provided a list of items to be seized, which included, his cellphones, quotation books of Deep Gold Investments, quotation books of Red Heart Investments, invoices of Deep Gold Investments, his laptop and USB.“Purporting to be acting in terms of the warrant of search, the Anti-Corruption Commission seized the following items from me; a Dell laptop, charger and bag, a brown envelope with documents, a letter heaf green in colour, a deed of suretyship, FSRA Form B for Red Heart Investments, Red Heart Form J, a blue folder with documents, leave application, purchase order, delivery note, Deep Heart invoices, resignation letter from Deep Gold Investment to FSRA, a letter to EswatiniBank resolution requesting an overdraft facility, HP Pro Book laptop with a bag which contained documents, brown envelope with documents,” submitted Dlamini.

He alleged that some of the items that were taken by the investigators included a blue Samsung A35 valued at E3 500 and brown Huawei from his car and a receipt book for Deep Gold Investment. Dlamini stated that from his wife, two cellphones, a Samsung and a Nokia, were taken by the investigators. According to Dlamini, the seizure was effected despite his protestation to the effect that his wife had nothing to do with the investigation, because it involved him and Masuku of Lusoti High School. He said he further highlighted that his wife was not mentioned as a person to be searched in the warrant. Dlamini contended that, despite his protestation, the ACC officials proceeded to unlawfully seize his wife’s cellphones.   
“The Anti-Corruption Commission officials should have sought a search warrant at the High Court, as it was an investigation of the commission as shown in a letter dated April 9, 2024,” he argued.

Dlamini averred that in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, which established the ACC, in Section 13, a search warrant is applied for and obtained from a judge in chambers. Section 13(2) stipulates that: “The investigator or officer shall not enter and search any premises without an order in writing issued by a judge in chambers on application of that investigator of officer. “It is my humble submission, therefore, that the search and consequently the seizure of the property found at my home, and companies was unlawful and falls to be set aside and the property attached and removed be returned forthwith to me and the second applicant (wife),” he argued.  The matter is still pending in court and appearing for Dlamini is Senior Lawyer Ben J Simelane.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: