Brigadier Kleintjie – a name already surrounded by controversy within South Africa’s security circles – has just made a shocking admission at the Commission of Inquiry: “I am sorry I lied to the Commission.”
This brief but weighty statement struck like a thunderclap, sparking widespread doubt about the transparency and honesty of the Hawks, the elite special unit known as the “spearhead” of South African law enforcement.
The hearing unfolded in a tense atmosphere as Brigadier Kleintjie was questioned about his role in a police operation at Katiso Malef’s home on December 6. He had previously claimed to have sent only two Hawks members to the scene, but collected evidence showed a larger presence, including marked Hawks vehicles. The contradictions in his testimony gradually revealed a complex story filled with questions about unlawful interference and manipulation of information.
When asked whether he participated in the Hawks’ WhatsApp group, Brigadier Kleintjie initially denied it. But soon after, he admitted, “If Captain Krueger confirms that I participated in the group chat, I will have to apologize to the Commission and admit that I was not truthful.” This admission not only shook his personal credibility but also raised public questions about the true nature of that operation.
From the start, Brigadier Kleintjie tried to explain that he did not want to send the entire Hawks team to the scene to avoid chaos and danger. “If you send too many police vehicles at once, it could cause confusion and even danger, as members might mistake each other and draw firearms,” he said. “Only two people should be sent to assess the situation and report back.” However, this explanation was unconvincing when in reality three or four Hawks vehicles were present, exceeding his stated instructions.
A particularly striking moment in the hearing was the WhatsApp message excerpts, where Brigadier Kleintjie was seen participating in a group chat with other Hawks members. In one message, Warrant Officer Malume Tom sent a photo of two men, one identified as the person who called Brigadier Kleintjie via Captain Krueger’s phone. “This is the person who called the Brigadier,” the message read, accompanied by a photo of a man in dark blue clothing. However, Brigadier Kleintjie maintained that he did not know the individuals in the photo and only communicated through Captain Krueger’s phone.
The contradictions in his testimony deepened the Commission’s doubts about Brigadier Kleintjie’s honesty. When asked to clarify what he meant by “confirmation” that would lead him to admit the truth, he could only ask to “reserve that answer for a later time.” This created a heavy, uncomfortable silence in the hearing room.
Not only denying or admitting, Brigadier Kleintjie also faced sharp questions about whether the Hawks interfered in a legitimate police operation. “One of the allegations before the Commission is that Hawks members interfered in a lawful police operation,” an investigator emphasized. Brigadier Kleintjie acknowledged the presence of marked Hawks vehicles, which he could not control or know the number of members riding in those cars. “I only dispatched two members; the rest was beyond my control,” he said.
The situation became more complicated when Captain Krueger – who was to testify immediately after Brigadier Kleintjie – was expected to provide further evidence of Hawks’ interference. Captain Krueger had stated that around 16:44 on December 6, the Hawks group chat contained information about an ongoing legitimate police operation, yet the Hawks remained on the scene for over an hour without withdrawing. This raised questions about their true intentions.
Brigadier Kleintjie also mentioned some Hawks members wore t-shirts bearing the Hawks emblem when on duty, although these were not official uniforms. “We operate in civilian clothes, but anyone who wants to wear a Hawks t-shirt is allowed,” he said. This highlighted the unclear organization and identification within the Hawks, suggesting possible internal disorder.
The hearing ended with a promise to continue with Captain Krueger’s testimony, which was expected to shed more light on the remaining mysteries. Meanwhile, the South African public closely follows each development with keen interest. Brigadier Kleintjie’s admission not only disrupted the Hawks’ image but also raised serious questions about transparency and accountability within the country’s law enforcement agencies.
This case is not just about errors in management and command but also a costly lesson about the importance of honesty and transparency in security work. When leaders fail to keep their word before the public and the Commission, society’s trust in the justice system is severely shaken.
Brigadier Kleintjie said: “If confirmation comes from Captain Krueger, I will admit I was not truthful.” But is this apology enough to soothe doubts and restore lost trust? Or is it only the first step in a complex series of events waiting to be uncovered?
Only time and persistent investigation can answer that question. But one thing is certain: this case will be remembered as a landmark example of the internal challenges and issues within South Africa’s security forces, especially the Hawks, who are expected to symbolize rigor and justice.
Meanwhile, the public awaits clearer explanations, more concrete evidence, and most importantly, real change in police operations to prevent similar incidents from damaging public confidence and fairness.
The recent hearing was not just a simple confrontation but an important milestone in the quest for truth and justice in South Africa. Brigadier Kleintjie has spoken, and now the whole nation is listening, waiting for the next answers from those responsible.
