SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
Case No. 2025-018563
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
SIGNATURE
DATE: 4 September 2025
In the matter between:
M[...] P[...] T[...] M[...] First Applicant
S[...] E[...] M[...] Second Applicant
and
MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT First Respondent
THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WITNESS PROTECTION,
LIMPOPO REGION Second Respondent
NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Third Respondent
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS,
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION Fourth Respondent
MINISTER OF POLICE Fifth Respondent
JOHN HENRY FFENNEL NICHOLAS Sixth Respondent
FATIMA GAFFOOR Seventh Respondent
JUDGMENT
WILSON J:
1 On 28 March 2025, I issued a rule nisi calling upon any interested party to
show cause why I should not grant a final interdict restraining the seventh
respondent, Lt. Col. Ga ffoor, from threatening, harassing or intimidating the
applicants, the M[...]s, and directing the fifth respondent, the Minister, to take
such steps as may be necessary to restrain Lt. Col. Ga ffoor from
threatening, harassing and intimidating the M[...]s, whether herself or
through the agency of any other person. The rule incorporated an interim
interdict on those terms.
2 My reasons for granting the rule nisi are set out in the judgment I issued with
it, which was published as M[...] v Minister of Justice and Constitutional
Development [2025] ZAGPJHC 325 (28 March 2025). In brief, those reasons
were that it had been established, prima facie, that text messages containing
threats to injure and to kill the M[...]s had been issued from cell numbers
associated with Lt. Col. Gaffoor. One of the messages identified the sender
as “Gaffoor”. In addition, at least some of the mes sages had been sent from
Parkview, or its neighbouring suburbs. Lt. Col. Gaffoor was stationed at
Parkview Police Station at the time the messages were sent, and apparently
still is. Finally, Lt. Col. Gaffoor is subject to a final protection order, issued in
the Randburg Magistrates’ Court, which restrains her from harassing the first
applicant, Mr. M[...]. She had apparently neither opposed the application for
that order nor sought to challenge it once it was granted.
3 Nevertheless, Lt. Col. Gaffoor had not been joined to the proceedings at the
time I issued the rule, and she was plainly entitled to be heard before it was
made final or discharged. Accordingly, I joined her as the seventh
respondent, and invited her to show cause why the rule should not be
finalised.
4 On the return day, 4 June 2024, I was advised that an affidavit from Lt. Col.
Gaffoor was in the advanced st ages of preparation, and would be filed
shortly. It was unfortunate that the affidavit had not been prepared in time,
but it was in the interests of justice to afford Lt. Col. Gaffoor the opportunity
to complete it. Accordingly, I extended the rule to 23 July 2025.
5 In the interim, Lt. Col. Gaffoor filed her affidavit. In it , Lt. Col. Gaffoor denied
that she had sent the messages the M[...]s received, but did very little to
disturb the underlying facts from which I drew the prima facie inference that
she had sent the messages. She accepted that one of the numbers used to
send the messages was associated with her address and identity number .
She also accepted that a number of the messages were sent from Parkview
or its neighbouring suburbs. She pointed out t hat other messages were sent
from Limpopo or other locations where she says she was not present at the
time they were sent. She also adverted to the fact that the National
Prosecuting Authority had declined to take action on the M[...]s’ complaints
against her. Lt. Col. Gaffoor had herself opened a complaint of intimidation
against her. Lt. Col. Gaffoor had herself opened a complaint of intimidation
against the M[...]s. The National Prosecuting Authority declined to pursue
that complaint as well.
6 The inherent weaknesses of Lt. Col. Gaffoor’s affidavit notwithstanding, I
took the view that, having at least asserted that she was not the source of
the messages the M[...]s received, Lt. Col. Gaffoor ought to be cross -
examined on her version. I directed that her affidavit would stand as her
evidence in chief. Lt. Col. Gaffoor presented herself to be cross-examined on
18 August 2025. Since the M[...]s appeared in person, I appointed Ushir Ahir
of the Johannesburg Bar as amicus curiae to conduct the cross-examination.
He did so skilfully and fairly, and I am grateful to him for his assistance. Ms.
Jara was then given an opportunity to re -examine Lt. Col. Gaffoor, after
which I heard argument and reserved judgment.
7 Lt. Col. Gaffoor’s performance under cross -examination was poor, and I am
now satisfied on a bal ance of probabilities that she was the source of the
threatening text messages the M[...]s received. In what follows, I give my
reasons for reaching this conclusion.
8 Mr. M[...] was a material witness in at least two murder cases that the
National Prose cuting Authority had ultimately declined to prosecute. The
M[...]s and their son were enrolled in the witness protection programme in
2014 in order to protect them from reprisal from the accused in those cases.
In 2017, after the National Prosecuting Auth ority declined to pursue the
prosecutions further, the M[...]s were ejected from the programme. The
M[...]s were not happy with the circumstances under which this took place. In
2018, the M[...]s laid complaints about the handling of their case, and the
murder dockets underlying them, at the Parkview Police Station.
9 On 14 October 2019, Lt. Col. Gaffoor commenced her duties as head of the
detectives section at Parkview Police Station. On 31 October 2019, the
docket relating to o ne of the M[...]s’ complaints, which had been sent to the
National Prosecuting Authority, was “booked back” to Parkview Police
National Prosecuting Authority, was “booked back” to Parkview Police
Station. I was told in evidence that a docket is “booked back” when it is
removed from the National Prosecuting Authority’s custody, and is no longer
actively being considered for further prosecutorial action. Mr. M[...]
developed the impression that the “booking back” of the docket was part of
an organised effort to frustrate his complaints against the way he had been
treated by the police and prosecutorial authorities.
10 The focus of Mr. M[...]’s discontent was apparently Lt. Col. Gaffoor. In late
April 2020, he laid a complaint against Lt. Col. Gaffoor at the Parkview
Police Station. The first threatening message sent to Mr. M[...] placed before
me on t he papers is dated 5 May 2020. It says: “ You think you better than
other people. Your cases will make other people lose their job. Withdraw or
you get shot. You will be traced. Son of a whore ”. It was followed up on 12
May 2020 with two more messages. The first simply said “Tik tok”. The
second said “bang”. The meaning of these messages is obvious. It is that
time is running out for Mr. Mamiane to withdraw his complaints, and that if he
does not there will be a “bang” – he will be shot.
11 The threatening mes sages continued regularly, and assumed more
elaborate and sometime s macabre forms as they did so. On 26 June 2020,
Mr. Mamiane received the following message: “ I have checked and u still
have not withdraw [sic] your stupid cases. Your wife will be shot fir st and
then your child will [be] next before u r killed like a dog. And nothing u can do
about it. You are just a dog”. The significance of this message is that it was
sent from a number - +2[...] – that everyone accepts was registered using an
address linked to Lt. Col. Gaffoor’s identity number.
12 On 24 July 2020, Mr. Mamiane received a message from the same number.
It said: “ur very stupid. You think this is a joke. Dont [sic] stand on the way u
are gonna die like a dog. Its either u withdraw or your wife gets killed. You
fucken [sic] dog. These cases are not going anywhere. Do u want to lose
your pathetic life over this.? [sic] Son of a bitch .” A further message sent a
minute later said: “Bang bang bang”.
13 The threatening messages continued , and Mr. Mamiane was certain that
13 The threatening messages continued , and Mr. Mamiane was certain that
they were coming from Lt. Col. Gaffoor . On 7 October 2021, Mr. Mamiane
obtained a protection o rder against Lt. Col. Gaffoor in the Randburg
Magistrates’ Court. On 26 October 2021, Mr. Mamiane received the following
message: “ I am sick and tired of your attitude. No court in this country is
gonna stop me from getting u killed. I am gonna show u what i am made of.
Ur mdssing [sic] with a wrong woman. I will wipe off your whole family in
broad day light. Fuck u. K ****r”. The significance of this message is that it
was sent soon after the protection order was granted against Lt. Col. Gaffoor
and contains reference to a “court”. It also refers to its sender as a “woman”.
14 On 13 December 2021, Mr. Mamiane received a further message. It said:
“Ur a fool. Nobody is gonna believe your story until u get killed. Your family is
gonna be killed too. U r not GAFFOOR i am, ur just a K****R not GAFFOOR.
Ur dead or withdraw your cases. BANG BANG.” A message from the same
number sent on 24 December 2021 says: “Bang bang. I hope my people find
u soon and kill your family during this festive season. I warned u to withdraw
your stupid cases. If u dare open another case again, your wife will die first.
All your cases r gonna be closed if u do not withdraw them. I know all the
investigators. Son of a bitch.”
15 On 21 January 2022, the same number sent the following message to Mr.
Mamiane: “ I am not gonna rest until your cases r withdraw or u and your
stupid family r dead. Or just cancel your cases and save your pathetic wife
and family. My guys r busy trying to follow u. See u in hell”. The number was
active again on 11 February 2022, when it sent the following message to Mr.
Mamiane: “Good morng [sic] son of a bitch. I think u believe now when i say
that i know people in high and low places. Your stupid cases are now
finished. Now i want to make u pay the price for the pain and stress u
caused me. Believe me when i say that your ugly wife, son and u are gonna
die like dogs. Nobody will know what killed. U r k****r.”
16 Finally, on 8 April 2022 the same number generated the following mes sage
to Mr. Mamiane: “ Good morning dog. We have noticed that ur now using a
bigger white car. We followed u from parkview to your residence. I am glad
bigger white car. We followed u from parkview to your residence. I am glad
we now identified your car and your address. Your station commander who
protected u is now gone, ur now o n your own. The new station commander
is an indian like myself not a k ****r like u. Ur gonna die like a dog. Or do the
right thing and withdraw your stupid cases or u die like a bitch.”
17 There were other messages, but I have set out only those that demonst rate
a clear contextual link to Lt. Col. Gaffoor . There is nothing in the messages I
have not set out which is inconsistent with such a link. The messages are
tied to Lt. Col. Gaffoor in at least five respects. First, there is the fact that two
of the messages were sent from a number linked to Lt. Col. Gaffoor. Second,
there is the fact the all the messages refer to cases lodged by Mr. Mamiane,
apparently against the author of the messages. Third, there is the fact that
one of the messages refers to its aut hor as “GAFFOOR”. Fourth, there is the
fact that one of the messages refers to Mr. Mamiane being followed from
“parkview”, where Lt. Col. Gaffoor is stationed, and where Mr. Mamiane
lodged his complaint against her. Fifth, there is the fact that one of the
messages refers directly to “court” action in circumstances where Mr.
Mamiane had recently obtained a protection order against Lt. Col. Gaffoor.
18 It seems to me that these facts, evaluated in context and left uncontradicted,
tip the balance of probabiliti es firmly in favour of the conclusion that the
messages came from Lt. Col. Gaffoor. In her evidence, Lt. Col. Gaffoor could
neither deny that these messages had been sent , nor explain why they
appeared to refer to her. Nor could she explain why one of the numbers from
which they emanated was linked to her. Mr. Ahir put to Lt. Col. Gaffoor that
the fact that Mr. Mamiane had laid a complaint against her was not publicly
known. She accepted this. Lt. Col . Gaffoor also accepted that only she, or
someone else wi thin the police or prosecutorial services, would have the
knowledge or the motive necessary to send the messages Mr. M[...]
received.
19 Lt. Col. Gaffoor did suggest that she was the victim of a set -up engineered
by other police officers, but she did not of fer the level of particularity I would
need to entertain such a far -reaching allegation. Nevertheless, I cannot
need to entertain such a far -reaching allegation. Nevertheless, I cannot
exclude the possibility that other police officers were involved in sending the
messages – especially since several of the messages refer to the ir author
acting in concert with others, and the fact that some of the messages were
sent from locations at which Lt. Col. Gaffoor says she was not present at the
time the messages were sent. However, the significant number of messages
sent from Parkview a t times Lt. Col. Gaffoor accepts she was there,
evaluated in light of the probabilities I have already set out, satisfies me that,
whether or not other officers were involved, Lt. Col. Gaffoor was the prime
mover in the campaign of intimidation directed at the M[...]s.
20 Faced with these probabilities, Lt. Col. Gaffoor would have to have been an
extremely impressive witness to create any hesitancy in confirming the rule.
However, her evidence was poor. While accepting all the facts which make it
overwhelmingly likely that she sent the messages of which the M[...]s
complain, she sought to explain them away by reference to a vague
conspiracy theory – to which I have already adverted – and appeals to the
proposition that she had no motive to endanger her posit ion by threatening
the M[...]s.
21 There is, of course, one motive for Lt. Col. Gaffoor’s conduct evident on the
papers. That is the fact that Mr. M[...] had complained about her. In
argument, Ms. Jara had to concede that this was motive enough. In any
event, the probabilit y that Lt. Col. Gaffoor sent the messages is so strong
that the absence of a motive would not have displaced it. As to Lt. Col.
Gaffoor’s regard for her senior position within the police service, it seems to
me that she made the threat s she did in the expectation that she would
never be held accountable.
22 In this, she was very nearly right. The facts in this case disclose a worrying
atmosphere of impunity around Lt. Col. Gaffoor. No-one in the police force
appears to have sought either to exonerate her or hold her accountable,
despite the very strong evidence against her. I cannot imagine what led the
National Prosecuting Authority to refuse to prosecute her for breaching the
protection order against her, or for sending the intimidating messages, but I
see nothing on the papers that explains the decision. In this court, too, the
see nothing on the papers that explains the decision. In this court, too, the
M[...]s’ case had to be enrolled twice before it was entertained.
23 Finally, Ms. Gaffoor adverted to the fact she is in a relationship with a black
African man, and so would never have used the word “k****r” in the way that
it was deployed in the messages sent to Mr. M[...]. I have already adverted
to the facts which demonstrate, at least on a balance of probabilities, that
this is exactly what she did. In any event, it seems to me that forming a close
relationship someone of another race does not in itself immunise a person
from racist attitudes or conduct.
24 For all these reasons, the rule nisi must be confirmed. Though they acted in
person, the M[...]s are enti tled to their disbursements in pursuing the relief I
will now grant.
25 Accordingly –
25.1 The rule nisi issued on 28 March 2025 is confirmed.
25.2 The fifth respondent is directed to take such steps as may be
necessary to ensure that the seventh respondent ceases, whether
herself or through the agency of any other police officer, to harass,
threaten or intimidate the applicants in any manner whatsoever.
25.3 The fifth respondent is directed to take such steps as may be
necessary to ensure that the seventh respondent refrains from
carrying out, whether herself or through the agency of any other
police officer, any of the threats made in the messages marked as
annexures 2 to 20 to the applicants’ founding affidavit, or from
harming the applicants in any other way.
25.4 The seventh respondent is interdicted and restrained, whether
herself or through the agency of any other person, from harassing,
threatening or i ntimidating the applicants in any manner
whatsoever, and from carrying out, whether herself or through the
agency of any other person, any of the threats made in the
messages marked as annexures 2 to 20 to the applicants’ founding
affidavit, or from harming the applicants in any other way.
25.5 The fifth respondent is directed to pay the applicants’ costs. Those
costs are limited to the disbursements the applicants reasonably
incurred in prosecuting the application.
S D J WILSON
Judge of the High Court
This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their legal
representatives by email, by uploading to Caselines, and by publication of the
judgment to the South African Legal Information Institute. The dat e for hand-down is
deemed to be 4 September 2025.
HEARD ON: 18 August 2025
DECIDED ON: 4 September 2025
For the Applicants In person
For the Respondents: P Jara
Instructed by the State Attorney
Amicus Curiae: U Ahir
At the request of the court