Mkhwebane exposes alarming allegations of police corruption and software fraud to the Madlanga Commission

Imagine paying someone R50 billion for software *you already built* – that's the alleged reality facing the SAPS, and it's a kak show of epic proportions. Seriously, you could buy a whole lot of biltong and braai equipment with that kind of money. Instead, it seems it’s gone up in smoke, lining the pockets of… well, we’ll get to them. This isn’t just a case of dodgy accounting; it’s a full-blown state capture situation, and it’s leaving our police force looking more under-equipped than a traffic warden facing a motorcycle gang. ## So, What's This PCEM Thing Anyway? Okay, let's get the basics sorted. PCEM – Property Control and Exhibit Management – is the system the SAPS uses to keep track of everything from firearms and evidence to lab exhibits and, well, basically anything they seize. It’s crucial. Think of it as the digital filing cabinet for every crime scene in the country. Without a proper system, things get lost, cases fall apart, and criminals walk free. It's the backbone of solving crime, bru. The SAPS initially conceived and *paid for* the system. That’s the part that makes this whole story so unbelievably frustrating. It wasn't some outsourced project where they needed external expertise. This was built *by* the police, *for* the police. ## R50 Billion Vanished? Let's Break Down the Allegations Right, so here’s where things get seriously befok. According to an affidavit submitted to the Madlanga Commission by the Busisiwe Mkhwebane Foundation (BMF) on May 13, three companies allegedly managed to claim ownership of a system the SAPS developed itself. And then, they started charging the SAPS to *use their own software*. The BMF alleges this resulted in a prejudice to the SAPS of “over R50 billion”. US$50 billion. Jislaaik. That’s a number that makes your eyes water. The BMF believes these companies “acquired a contract to control the software through capturing the SAPS.” Essentially, they somehow convinced the police they didn’t own what they’d created. The details are still being investigated, but the core claim is simple: fraud on a massive scale. They've named no companies as of yet, as they were unable to locate them for comment. ## The Whistleblower Who Paid the Price? This story gets darker. Lieutenant-General Sindile Christopher Mfazi, a deputy police commissioner, started digging into this mess back in 2018. He saw the red flags, he started asking questions, and he launched a review application to get the PCEM copyright reviewed, hoping to declare the contract fraudulent and recover the money. He wanted to get the State to recover the funds already paid. Then, in July 2021, Mfazi died. At the age of 59. The BMF doesn’t make any direct allegations about the cause of his death, but the timing is… suspicious, to say the least. Following his death, the review application was "effectively abandoned". No one stepped up to continue the fight. The foundation submits that he was, in effect, a whistle-blower, disclosing information that pointed to criminal conduct. Eish. It’s a chilling reminder of the risks people take when they try to do the right thing. ## The IT Specialist Who Uncovered The Truth Enter Lithisha Frances Richardson, director of Harebueng Managed Services. She was initially hired by one of the companies involved to *prove* their ownership of the PCEM system's intellectual property. Talk about a conflict of interest! But Richardson isn’t easily swayed. Over five years, she conducted a forensic investigation, digging through “corporate records, source code and metadata, bank statements, shareholders agreements, tender documents, thousands of pages of email correspondence and WhatsApp communications, court records, and parliamentary records.” The result? She concluded that the company – and its director – had participated in a “fraudulent scheme to strip the State of its own property”. The report is a “damning indictment,” according to the BMF. And it all points to one thing: the SAPS was robbed. ## Copyright Chaos: Who Actually *Owns* The Software? The legal argument here hinges on the Copyright Act. If the PCEM system was developed under the direction and control of the State – which, according to Mfazi’s affidavit, it was – then the copyright automatically belongs to the State. Period. No private company can lawfully claim ownership. Mfazi detailed the factual basis for the State’s claim: the SAPS is an organ of the State; the PCEM system was made under the direction and control of the State; the State exercised control over the making of the computer program; the program was created for and at the instance of the SAPS; the development was paid for by the State; and SAPS personnel provided detailed instructions throughout. A former SAPS superintendent, later employed by one of the benefiting companies, even stated in an affidavit that the software’s development was entirely under SAPS directive, and the directors had “no knowledge whatsoever” of the detailed processes. Apparently, the system was conceptualized and written by SAPS members as far back as the early 90s. So this isn’t some quick grab of intellectual property; this is decades of work stolen. ## What Does This Mean For You, The Taxpayer? This isn’t just about a R50 billion loss (US$50 billion). It’s about the impact on our ability to fight crime. Money that should have been spent on boots on the ground, better training, and updated equipment was instead siphoned off into the pockets of these companies. It’s about a compromised police force, struggling to do its job effectively. Every time you get stuck in traffic because there aren’t enough visible police, every time you hear about a spike in crime in your area, remember this. This isn't abstract corruption; it has real-world consequences for all of us. You're footing the bill for this kak. ## Where Does This Leave Us Now? And What's Next? The Madlanga Commission is now investigating these allegations. They’ve received the submission from the BMF, but spokesperson Jeremy Michaels said it's their "culture not to publicly discuss its investigations or methodologies”. Which, frankly, is frustrating. We need transparency here. The Commission needs to get to the bottom of this, identify those responsible, and recover the stolen funds. If these allegations are true, this is a betrayal of the highest order. It’s a stain on our democracy. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. **Verdict:** This isn’t just a scandal; it’s a daylight robbery. The SAPS was cheated out of its own intellectual property, and taxpayers are left holding the bag. This needs to be investigated thoroughly, and those responsible need to face the full force of the law. But here's the question that keeps me up at night: if this could happen with software, what *else* has been stolen from us under the guise of "private partnerships"? Click here to find out about other state capture schemes that are still lurking in the shadows.