THE landowners of Phezukomkhono in KwaZulu-Natal claim that police abused and harassed them to get businessman Hector Kunene access to Transasia.
They said this was despite the fact that Kunene was not known to them.
The landowners, Veli Buthelezi and Andries Buthelezi, said this happened in July 2019, when Kunene arrived with a group of heavily armed policemen.
They claimed that Kunene and his legal representatives, ENSafrica, wanted to access the entrance to Transasia. Police allegedly ended up breaking the gate.
This came after Transasia Minerals, owned by ANC stalwart Mathews Phosa and his business partner Luda Roytblat, purchased the mining rights licence from Umsovumbu Coal, which is owned by Kunene.
After receiving R14 million for the mining rights from Transasia, Kunene reportedly Kunene wanted the mine back, which resulted in Transasia opening a case of fraud against him.
The Buthelezi brothers said Kunene, ENSafica, and police entered their area without their consent. Their legal representatives, K Makobe Attorneys, said it started when police were asked to produce a court order or a warrant giving them permission to be at Transasia. The attorneys said police had failed to produce a warrant and opted to threaten and intimidate the community.
In the affidavit to the former national police commissioner, the attorneys said Veli attempted to open a case of intimidation at the police station in Dundee, but police refused to help him.
The attorneys said the police threatened him and told him to delete pictures of what happened at the scene. They said Veli was told that he should be quiet and if he did not comply, they (police) would silence him.
“Needless to say our client felt shocked, threatened, and intimidated by the utterances of the officers who were supposed to protect them. We further wish to point out that our community in Phezukomkhono was also left traumatised by the conduct of police,” the attorneys said.
Community members said the police did not adhere to the SAPS’s code of conduct and failed to render a responsible and effective service.
“They failed to work towards excellence as is reasonably expected from law enforcement officers. The intention was to frustrate and dissuade our clients from opening a case of malicious injury to property and trespassing,” the attorneys said.
The attack was confirmed by advocate Thabo Mokwena, who said he had also represented the Phezukomkhono community in 2019. Mokwena confirmed that the attack continued even after the matter was reported to the police.
Mokwena told the Pietermaritzburg High Court that he arrived at the scene, where he was informed that Veli had opened a case of harassment against Kunene, who forced his way on to their land. He added that he was also informed that Kunene was unknown to the brothers.
“While engaging with the community members, Kunene arrived in the company of a female Indian lawyer and the police from Dundee. I approached them after I was instructed by my clients to enquire from Kunene what was his problem,” Mokwena said.
He said the Buthelezi brothers were adamant that if Kunene had a dispute with the mining rights over their property, then he should approach the regional director of minerals and comply with the available provisions of the Mining Act to solve the problem.
“It became an event to me that Kunene was forcing entry on my client’s properties even though he neither consulted with them nor asked for permission to enter the mine surface in contravention of sections 98 and 99 of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act No 28 of 2002,” Mokwena said.
In June this year, Kunene, who was released on bail following his arrest on the R14m fraud charge, attempted again to enter the mining premises unlawfully. Kunene visited the premises and illegally flew a drone into the premises to collect information to use against Phosa and Roytblat in court.
His visit was allegedly advised by ENSafrica.
The matter is currently before the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), which alleges that Kunene and ENSafrica contravened section 18(2)(a) of the Riotous Assemblies Act 17 of 1956 when they conspired to aid or procure the commission of the offences of fraud, trespassing, contravention of the Civil Aviation Act and the Cyber Crime Act.