South African court clears way for police to access Hawks chief’s phone
Gauteng Hawks head Maj-Gen Ebrahim Kadwa has lost another bid to keep police out of his seized phone, a device he says holds state secrets.
Gauteng Hawks head Maj-Gen Ebrahim Kadwa has lost another bid to keep police out of his seized phone, a device he says holds state secrets. The Johannesburg High Court has now blocked his attempt to take the fight straight to the Supreme Court of Appeal, leaving him with a narrower route if he wants to keep the contents private.
The ruling adds fresh pressure on a senior law-enforcement official already caught in a case that has spilled well beyond a routine arrest. Kadwa’s phone was taken by police in May when he was arrested over an alleged breach of the Precious Metals Act and a charge of defeating and obstructing the course of justice.
What the court decided
The high court last week dismissed Kadwa’s application for leave to appeal a judgment that had already rejected his bid to get the phone back. That means police can move ahead with access to the device unless Kadwa wins special leave to appeal directly from the Supreme Court of Appeal.
That is the next hurdle. A steep one.
The state wants to use evidence from the phone in the Madlanga commission inquiry. Court papers and the phone data have already taken on a life of their own, with material from the device publicly displayed at the commission.
Why the phone matters
Kadwa has argued that the handset contains sensitive information, including what he describes as state secrets. But the courts have so far not accepted his effort to block access.
The case has also drawn attention because of Kadwa’s co-accused, Maj-Gen Feroz Khan, head of crime intelligence. Khan’s phone was seized on the same day as his arrest, 10 May, and evidence from it, including links to alleged tender scandals in the National Treasury, has already been aired in public at the Madlanga commission.
The unfolding dispute sits at the intersection of criminal investigation, intelligence work and public inquiry. It also raises a familiar question seen in cases from London to Washington: how far can security officials go in claiming secrecy when investigators say a phone may hold evidence?
For now, Kadwa’s options have narrowed. To stop police and the commission from seeing what is on the device, he must seek special leave from the top appeals court. The next move will decide whether the phone stays sealed in law — or becomes fully available to investigators.
