Mbense murder case: Defence presses IPID investigator
The defence challenged the evidence against six accused during Tuesday’s bail proceedings, questioning whether their presence at the scene establishes involvement in Mbense’s murder.
The six co-accused in the case of the murder of Emmanuel Mbense appeared before the Brakpan Magistrate’s Court today (August 18) for bail proceedings.
Nomsa Masuku, a senior investigator of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), was questioned by the prosecution on the particulars of the events of the night of Mbense’s murder.
According to Masuku, the group of SAPS members, EMPD members and private security present at the scene were there from around 21:00 to about 02:00, as bail applicant five, Julius Mkhwanazi, said that he arrived at that time, putting law enforcers on the scene for about five hours.
Asked about Mkwhanazi’s rank as “head of the EMPD”, Masuku clarified that he was acting chief at the time of the murder.
Asked about the particulars of the deaths of four of the people who were present that night, she explained in detail how each had died and the possible or proven reasons why.
She reported that some of their deaths were possibly due to a death pact made by the group of 13 people who were on the scene that night.
The four who have died are Marius van der Merwe, Wiandre Pretorius, SAPS officer Mzwakhe Khoza and Chris Hanekom.
Pretorius shot himself at a petrol station in Brakpan in February, which Masuku claims can be attributed to his finding out that there was DNA evidence that placed him at the scene, assaulting the deceased.
Hanekom was shot and killed 10 days after he submitted evidence in a copper theft case in 2023, while Khosa was fatally shot after confronting drug dealers outside his house in Tsakani on October 17, 2025.
Read: Family remembers slain off-duty officer
Another claim made by Masuku states that the private security members present on the scene on the night of the murder were there because private security in Gauteng allegedly claim 10% of stolen stock, or stock on a stolen or hijacked vehicle for themselves.
She stated that the value of the copper allegedly stolen by Mbense in an earlier robbery in Boksburg came to about R2.5m, which would mean a significant pay-day for the private security in the operation.
She also stated that the Local Criminal Record Centre (LCRC) needed to be alerted to attend to the scene if Mbense did steal the copper, but they were never called to process the scene.
“The applicants (for bail) all say in their statements that they were there that night, but they all say they were outside when the murder occurred,” she explained.
“They spent three to five hours at the deceased’s house, but claim they never saw him there. The truck used to steal the copper was parked, yet they did not confiscate it despite it being linked to the property.”
The court heard that the applicants were aware of the investigation against them, and handed themselves over to IPID, but Masuku told the court that they only did so because they weren’t aware of how strong the case against them is.
“My concern is that during the time they were giving their statements, they all said almost exactly the same thing. They said they were all there, but never saw the deceased,” she said.
They had a meeting before and after the operation, according to Masuku, the latter of which they were allegedly sworn to secrecy on pain of death.
“Deaths happened. Hanekom, Khosa, Marius, Wiandre killed himself relating to this matter,” she said.
Another anonymous witness, who claimed to have had their life threatened by the group, met with IPID at the OR Tambo International Airport, and then went into hiding for six weeks before returning and refusing to divulge further details.
After an adjournment, Masuku was questioned by the defence on whether or not applicant one, Cobus Janse van Rensburg, could be held to the murder charges if he was not inside the house at the time.
She stated that it was the duty of all law enforcement and security at the scene to intervene in the assault, and by not doing so they were assisting in the assault.
The defence told the court that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to furnish the defence with the particulars of the case against his client, including any evidence that proves his guilt, so they have a fair chance to apply for bail.
He further claims that the offence was not committed with prior agreement from the entire group present that night, and states that there is no evidence of it.
In a hand-written statement from Van der Merwe, it is stated that the assault was committed by Pretorius and two SAPS members, with no mention of Janse van Rensburg.
Masuku highlighted that the statement the defence was reading from was not a commissioned statement, and that she later took a typed statement from Van der Merwe herself which was more detailed.
The court adjourned, with the next appearance set for August 20.
The accused remain in custody.
