Hearing record
Day 59
IPID senior investigator Nomsa Masuku told the commission that DNA evidence tied to the December killing of the protected witness known as 'Witness D', identified as Marius van der Merwe, linked the murder scene to suspects in a years-old Brakpan case, and she described repeated attempts on her own life while probing corrupt officers.
The day in brief
What you need to know
- Nomsa Masuku, an IPID senior investigator, was the primary witness on Day 59 (Thursday, 12 February 2026).
- She testified that DNA collected at the scene of the December killing of 'Witness D' (Marius van der Merwe) also connected to suspects tied to a Brakpan case dating back roughly four years.
- Masuku told the commission she had survived multiple attempts on her life as a consequence of investigating corrupt police officers.
- Her evidence continued the Ekurhuleni corruption thread opened on Day 58, linking a murdered witness to an existing IPID docket.
- The DNA links she described are investigative leads on the public record before the commission, not proof of guilt against any named suspect.
- Everyone implicated retains the presumption of innocence unless and until convicted by a court.
Full coverage
The day, in depth
DNA that crosses cases
Masuku's central evidence was forensic: she told the commission that DNA recovered after the killing of Witness D did not stay contained to that scene, but matched material connected to suspects in a Brakpan matter that is several years old. On her account, the two dockets are forensically linked - a claim that, if it stands up, would tie the murder of a state witness to a wider web of suspects.
An investigator under fire
Masuku described surviving repeated attempts on her life while investigating corrupt officers, putting the risk faced by IPID investigators directly on the record. Her testimony reinforced the commission's recurring theme that those probing police-linked crime can become targets themselves.
Our analysis
The bottom line
Masuku's testimony gave the abstract capacity problem from Day 58 a human and forensic edge. The alleged DNA bridge between the killing of Witness D and an older Brakpan docket is the kind of concrete thread the commission has been short of, because it points to continuity of suspects across time rather than isolated incidents. It should be read as an investigative lead offered under oath, not a finding, and the individuals it touches are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Her account of surviving attempts on her life sharpens a question the commission will have to sit with: whether the state can protect the people it asks to investigate the police. When the investigator and the protected witness in the same matter are both targeted - one fatally, on her telling - the reliability of the whole accountability chain is on the line, and that is a systemic concern the commission is well placed to examine.
Analysis is the archive’s own comment on the public proceedings, grounded in the record above. It weighs the evidence and the process; questions of individual guilt are for the courts and the commission to decide. Everyone named is presumed innocent.
In the room & on the record
Counsel, the panel and sources
On the panel
- Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga (chairperson)