Hearing record
Day 60
IPID assistant director Thulani Magagula told the commission he had not wanted 'Witness D' to testify because the man was a key witness in a case against the EMPD boss, giving the commission an investigator's-eye account of why the murdered informant mattered so much to the Ekurhuleni docket.
The day in brief
What you need to know
- Thulani Magagula, an IPID assistant director, was the witness on Day 60 (Friday, 13 February 2026).
- He testified that he had not wanted Witness D to give evidence because the informant was central to a case IPID was building against the EMPD boss.
- His account underlined how the killing of Witness D removed a pivotal source from a live investigation into Ekurhuleni metro policing.
- Magagula's evidence dovetailed with Masuku's Day 59 forensic testimony, giving the commission a second IPID perspective on the same murder probe.
- The case against the EMPD figure remains an allegation being investigated; that person is presumed innocent unless and until convicted.
- The testimony is part of the commission's record and does not constitute a judicial finding.
Full coverage
The day, in depth
Why the witness mattered
Magagula told the commission he had been reluctant to see Witness D testify because the man was, in his assessment, a key witness in the case against the EMPD boss. His evidence framed the informant as load-bearing for the whole Ekurhuleni docket - which is why, on the investigators' telling, the December killing struck at the heart of the probe.
A third IPID voice in three days
With Keefelakae on Day 58, Masuku on Day 59 and Magagula on Day 60, the commission heard three successive IPID investigators build out the Ekurhuleni corruption picture from different angles - structural, forensic and case-specific. Magagula's contribution tied the murdered witness directly to the strength of the case against the metro police leadership.
Our analysis
The bottom line
Magagula's testimony reframed the killing of Witness D from a tragedy into a potential investigative setback with a motive shaped around it. By saying he had not wanted the informant to testify because of how central the man was, he effectively told the commission that the state understood the risk in advance - which raises hard questions about witness protection that the commission may want to pursue. As always, the case against the named EMPD figure is untested, and that person keeps the presumption of innocence.
Taken together, Days 58 to 60 form a tight IPID trilogy: the mandate is under-resourced, the forensic threads cross dockets, and the human sources at the centre of those threads are being killed or targeted. That sequencing looks deliberate on the evidence leaders' part, and it hands the commission a coherent evidentiary block about how police-on-police corruption in Ekurhuleni allegedly sustained itself - a block later witnesses will either corroborate or complicate.
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)