A powerful man is dead. Nati Mutetto,

South Africa’s former Minister of

Police, the man who once controlled the

state’s entire security apparatus, died

under mysterious circumstances in Paris.

His tragic end came just 11 days after a

top police general, Muanazi, delivered

devastating testimony against him under

oath. This is a story about two

accusations, six years apart. The first

was met with arrogant threats of a 5

million rand lawsuit. The second was met

with a final desperate silence.

The difference between those two

reactions tells us everything we need to

know about the depth of the rot in our

state and it leads us to a horrifying

question. Who or what was really

responsible for the final act of nati

mutetwa? Here is what you are going to

see in this exhaustive analysis. First,

we will show you the arrogant Nati

Mutetwa of 2019. A man who believed he

was untouchable. A man who responded to

accusations of corruption with furious

threats. Second, you will hear the

bombshell testimony from 2025, the

direct firsthand account from a top

general that stripped Mutwa of his power

and his playbook. And finally, we will

confront the chilling aftermath and the

cynical blame game that seeks to turn a

brave whistleblower into a villain. This

is the real story, and you need to see

the evidence for yourself. Trust me, you

need to see this. So, please click the

like button and subscribe. To understand

why a man with so much power had such a

tragic end, we first have to see him

when he believed he was invincible. We

have to rewind the clock to 2019 when

the first whispers of corruption

surfaced at the Zondo Commission. This

was his playbook. This was his first

move. Damn, roll the clip.

Well, welcome back. And of course, now a

damning testimony has been emanating

from the estate capture inquiry about

cabinet minister Natim Tetto. A former

crime intelligence officer told the

Zonda commission that a secret service

account funded the purchase of a

MercedesBenz form Tetra when he was

police minister. Now, it’s not the first

time that Intra, who is now the arts and

culture minister, has been named as

having benefited from state capture.

It’s also alleged that a wall was built

at his private home courtesy of the

fund. Nam Tetra released a statement

today saying that when the matter was

raised at the commission earlier this

year, he responded in writing and

submitted the findings of an

investigation by the auditor general. We

understand is now looking to go the

legal route. He joins us now via

telephone. A very good evening to you

minister. Thank you very much for your

time.

Thank you. Thank you Chrisa. Now, of

course, Minister, uh I know that these

allegations have come up at the State

Capture Commission again, and now I

understand that you want to sue for

defamation.

Well, I I will I definitely will, and I

was I I’ve already instructed my lawyers

that

for defamation, we are suing

Mr. Naid or Kel Naidu 5 million rats for

it because it’s not a new thing h it’s

something which is being pedled and

everybody knows that these allegations

both of the wall and of the so-called

SUV

h came about in 2012

and at the time the director general

wants us to investigate me which he did.

He spoke to everybody people in the

police of the hawks of crime

intelligence and every and everybody

else and I have cleared and they know

that I was cleared on all cows including

the the the SUV with the SUV for

instance um I made the point that I’ve

not seen the vehicle let alone getting

into it. Now we’ve heard Naidu saying he

came he actually delivered the car at my

place. Now what we we are asking is what

date was that who did he deliver the car

to so that people don’t just make

allegations which they can’t

substantiate. You would know that

government uh provide ministers with

vehicles. Um when I was in the police,

the vehicles and people who were driving

me because we get driven by protectors

are still alive. They were also

questioned around that time. They put it

very clearly that they also have not

seen the car he’s talking about. So for

me I think that I can’t leave this

because the commission’s work I don’t

know when it’s going to end.

So I am taking these steps because I

want to get to the bottom of this thing

as urgent as possible.

All right minister. So you’re saying

you’re suing for 5 million rand as a

result of this uh uh uh latest or what

you’ve referred to in your statement as

a rehashed allegation. But why would

they lie? This is not the first time

that these allegations have come through

in the commission of inquiry into state

capture and I’d like to ask you I mean

categorically state who do you think

then is behind this?

I don’t even want to get there because

look,

but why not, Minister? I’m really sorry,

Minister. Why not? This is an

opportunity for you speculate, right? I

want to put facts on the table. And fact

one is that the the AG

investigated this thing and people who

went to both of them in fact three

people have mentioned my name. It’s

poisons. It’s Rolof and Naid do now all

of them know and they were part of the

investigation where

this these two uh matters were

questioned and both of them know that I

was exonerated. poison is on record

having said that as the commission but

they are pedling this thing because they

wanted to be there and make those people

who were not around in 2012 would not

know what had happened

and and for them they want to keep it as

something and just dismatching my name

basically so I’m

clear minister why would they do that

what would bo and the others have to

gain because also according to your

statement uh you also say that you’re

aware that other witnesses in future

will also make reference to the same

issue.

Well, um they they they can answer to

that, but the the witnesses I was

referring to this statement was delayed.

Uh it was before Naidu and the

commission, the Zondo commission did

inform me that there is a Naidu who is

coming. So the statement was made uh

even before he came. Yes.

So why they are doing it, I think

they’ll be able to explain that to

courts.

All right. So, you’re suing each and

everyone who’s implicated you on this

very same allegation uh for five 5

million rand each. Is that what you’re

saying? Can I just get clarity on that?

No. Uh let me say this. Uh poison did

say that he doesn’t know the details. He

doesn’t even know whether

I knew where the funds came from

on the issue of the war. So he was he

was clear on that.

Okay.

This the the Naidu is actually saying

himself as a person he delivered the car

to my place

to my residence. So there you see he he

has made it clear that I know what I

said and I’ve been saying that I’ve

never seen the vehicle. He’s saying he

actually delivered it. So he’s is very

clear and rolloff was also referring to

Naidu that Naidu is coming. Now Naidu is

here. Naidu is telling South Africans

that he actually delivered the car to my

residence. Yeah.

So Nigel is not the only one clearly

then that you’re going to be suing

because you also say in that statement

that you’re aware that other witnesses

in future will also make reference to

the same issue. Who else is expected to

as I said I I I please bear with me

here.

I’m saying to you the statement was

prepared before Naidu. Okay. I knew that

Zaidu is coming

and the Zondo commission had notified me

that he is. You see with with the two I

took it that um maybe they didn’t see

the contents of the outcome of the

investigation.

Yeah.

Because they were always you know saying

something like they don’t know where I

knew. This one is saying for sure this

man as a former minister of police.

Yeah.

I went to him. I gave him the car.

All right. Okay. Let’s stop.

Let’s rewind and listen to that first

part again because it is the foundation

of his entire strategy. He says, “I’ve

already instructed my lawyers that for

defamation we are suing Mr. Neidato. 5

million rands for that.”

Let’s just echo that phrase for a

moment. 5 million rands. This is not

just a threat. It is a weapon. It is a

financial cudel designed to crush a

witness. A public servant, a minister in

the South African government is being

asked to account for serious allegations

made under oath at a judicial commission

of inquiry. The allegations made by a

former crime intelligence officer named

Danagaya Naidu were that Moutetto had

benefited from a secret police slush

fund receiving a luxury SUV and having a

wall built at his private home. His

first response is not to produce

evidence to refute the claims. It is to

threaten the witness with a financially

crippling 5 million rand lawsuit. This

is a tactic of pure intimidation, plain

and simple. It is designed to send a

chilling message to anyone else who

might be thinking of coming forward. If

you dare to speak my name, I will use my

power and my resources to ruin you. 5

million rands. It’s a number designed to

terrify, to silence, to make the truth

too expensive to tell. Moutetto’s entire

defense rests on a single claim repeated

over and over like a mantra. He says,

“The director general investigate me and

I was cleared and they know that I was

cleared.” Let’s drill down into that

sentence. I was cleared. It sounds so

definitive, so absolute. He presents

this as a silver bullet, a final word

that makes any further questions

illegitimate. He claims an auditor

general’s report from 2012 exonerated

him completely. But this is a classic

case of a halftruth being more dangerous

than a lie. Investigative reports from

that time and Mutetto knew this painted

a far murkier picture. Those reports did

indeed find that the wall at his private

residence was built using money from the

crime intelligence slush fund.

Let me repeat that. The auditor general

confirmed that state money was used to

build his private wall. The report’s

only saving grace for Mutto was that it

could not find conclusive proof that he

knew where the money came from. So, he

wasn’t cleared of the wall being built

with state funds. The state absolutely

paid for his private renovation. He was

simply given the convenient political

shield of plausible deniability.

He knows this. So when he stands there

and says, “I was cleared,” it is a

deliberate and cynical manipulation.

He is using a bureaucratic loophole to

pretend the underlying crime never

happened. The year is 2025.

The venue is the Madlanga Commission of

Inquiry. The atmosphere is completely

different from the Zondo Commission.

This inquiry is laser focused on the rot

within the criminal justice system

itself. And the man in the witness box

is not a former officer with a

grievance. He is Lieutenant General

Nanla Muanazi,

the current serving provincial police

commissioner of Quazulu Natal, one of

the most powerful and respected

operational commanders in the entire

South African police service. He was for

a time the acting national commissioner.

This is an insidider insider. When he

speaks, he speaks with the full

authority of his office and decades of

experience on the front lines. The

allegations he is about to make are not

about cars or walls anymore. This is not

about the abuse of funds. This is about

the abuse of power at its most raw and

destructive. Muanazi is about to testify

about a direct verbal order he allegedly

received from Nati Mutetwa. An order to

stop a criminal prosecution. An order to

protect one of the most feared and

controversial figures in the history of

the police service. The former head of

crime intelligence, Richard Mlulli.

Glamini, play the clip.

Julie must be charged. She must withdraw

that.

So when I asked her about why you want

to withdraw the letter of a criminal

case, you’ve read the case and you wrote

to me and you say must go and face a

music. Why do you want to withdraw it?

And she said no no no it’s my career now

in line. So I need to withdraw that. I

made a wrong decision. I should not have

said Muli must be charged. Which means

she she charged the wrong people in the

in the higher eelon of maybe within the

police structures or in government that

did not want Julie to be charged.

and I refused to to come back and when

and withdraw the lead and then I

received a phone call from the minister

of police nim

commissioners I went to his residence in

water

and when I arrived there the inspector

general is sitting on one side of the

table Mr. is sitting on the other side

of the table. The minister says to me

that I forced the inspector general of

intelligence to write the letter that

says Mu is wrong. This matter must go to

court. She said I forced her. Then I

told her I said no minister

advocate KV is an old woman. She’s an

advocate. How can I point a gun at her

and force her to write a letter? side

when this letter was written was written

in her office and she actually is not

the author of the letter the author of

the letter is advocate Jay governor who

is an experienced prosecutor person

who’s working in that office she’s the

one that drafted the letter not you not

not inspeing

lulli we must stop disciplinary case

against

now if if we talk about political

interference that was the worst I’ve

ever experienced. At that time,

commissioner, I come from the

specialized operation. The only thing I

know is to chase criminals and I’m

promoted to become the acting national

commissioner and I’m confronted with

this in front of me. And I said, but

this is not what I signed for when I

joined the police. This can’t be right.

The minister can’t give me these

instructions. Then I said to the

minister, “Minister, maybe you brought

me into this position and and you

thought you’re going to use me as a pawn

because perhaps of my age or whatever,

but you you you went you are wrong. I’m

not going to do that.” If

Stop. Let’s all take a breath and

understand what we have just heard.

Let’s rewind that single devastating

line. The general testifies that the

minister of police, Nati Mutetwa, gave

him a direct order. A simple say must

stop prosecuting Mdlulli. Must stop

disciplinary case against MD Luli. This

is a political nuclear bomb. This is a

top serving police general under oath

accusing a former minister of police of

directly and illegally interfering in a

criminal investigation to protect a

powerful and allegedly corrupt

subordinate.

This is the smoking gun. This is the

moment where the entire system is laid

bare. We are not talking about dodgy

tenders or undeclared benefits anymore.

We are talking about the Minister of

Police. The man whose entire

constitutional duty is to uphold the law

and ensure criminals are brought to

justice, allegedly giving a direct order

to his national commissioner to do the

exact opposite. I’m sorry, but can you

believe the audacity? Can you picture

the scene? A late night summons to the

minister’s residence in Waterl.

The acting head of the entire police

service is called in not to discuss

crime fighting strategy but to be given

a direct illegal order in the presence

of the inspector general of

intelligence. This isn’t just an

allegation of corruption. This is an

allegation of a conspiracy at the

highest levels of the state’s security

cluster. It’s an allegation of defeating

the ends of justice. It is a criminal

act. This is the very definition of

state capture. It is the moment the

state stops fighting crime and starts

protecting the powerful. And Muinazi

knew it instantly. His reaction wasn’t

confusion. It was revulsion. He says,

“This is not what I signed. For when I

joined the police, this can’t be right.

That is the reaction of an honest cop

confronted with the deepest, most

cynical rot imaginable.” What happens

next is a tragedy wrapped in a mystery.

But before the tragedy, there was the

silence. For 11 days after General

Mcuinazi dropped his bombshell

testimony, the entire country held its

breath waiting. We were all waiting for

the nati mutetto of 2019 to reappear. We

were waiting for the angry press

conference from the embassy in Paris. We

were waiting for the lawyer’s letter

threatening General Muinazi with a 10

million rand lawsuit. This time we were

waiting for the confident indignant

politician to come out swinging to call

the general a liar to defend his honor

with the same theatrical fury he had

displayed 6 years earlier. We waited and

we waited and from Paris there was only

a deafening damning silence and then the

news broke. On September 30th 2025 the

silence became permanent. Nati Moutetto

was gone. In the aftermath of this

tragedy, a new and deeply cynical

narrative began to emerge. According to

multiple reports, Mutetwa’s grieving

family and his political allies started

to point the finger not at the system of

corruption that had entangled him, not

at the political party that had deployed

him. They pointed the finger at the

whistleblower. They began to blame

General Nalanla Muanazi for his death.

Let’s stop and analyze this blame game

because it is one of the most insidious

and dangerous tactics used to protect

the corrupt. Let’s rewind to Mutetwa’s

own words from 2019.

When asked why people were accusing him,

he said, “I don’t want to speculate.” He

wanted to stick to the facts. Yet now

the narrative is all about speculation.

It is about creating a causal link where

none exists. It is an attempt to reframe

the entire event. The focus is shifted

away from the critical question, were

General Muanazi’s allegations true and

it is replaced with a new emotionally

charged question, did General Muanazi’s

words lead to Nati Mutetwa’s death? This

is a classic tactic of turning the

whistleblower into the villain. It aims

to make the act of telling the truth

seem more offensive than the alleged

crime itself. Hold on a second. Are we

really supposed to accept this logic? A

top police general does his

constitutional duty. He goes before a

legally constituted commission of

inquiry and under oath gives evidence

about an alleged crime committed by a

powerful politician. The evidence is so

damning that the politician apparently

feels he cannot defend himself against

it. And now we are told we should blame

the policeman. We are being told to

shoot the messenger because his message

was too powerful, too denied. It is a

complete inversion of morality. This is

a tactic that has been used to crush

whistleblowers in South Africa for

decades. This is our brutal comparative

case. Think about the way the state

security apparatus and their hired PR

firm Belle Pottinger went after public

protector Thuli Madonella when she

released the state of capture report.

They didn’t engage with her findings.

They launched a vicious smear campaign

to destroy her character. Think about

the way the system tried to discredit

and isolate Athl Williams after he

testified about Bay & Company’s role in

destroying SARS.

And we must never forget the ultimate

price paid by whistleblowers like

Barbita Deocaran who was assassinated

outside her home for exposing corruption

in the Gao Department of Health. The

system doesn’t just ignore those who

expose the rot. It actively seeks to

punish them to mark them as traitors to

make them an example to anyone else who

might dare to speak out. The attempt to

blame Muanazi for Mutto’s death is the

most grotesque and final form of that

tactic. It is an attempt to create a new

rule for public life in South Africa. If

you expose a powerful person and they

cannot face the consequences, their fate

is your fault. It is the ultimate

silencing mechanism. Let’s be charitable

to the family and allies for a moment.

They are in pain. They have suffered a

terrible loss. In that grief, it is

perhaps psychologically easier to find a

single visible target to blame, like

General Mcquinazi, than it is to

confront the more complex and painful

possibility that their loved one was

involved in something so dark, so

indefensible that he felt this was his

only way out. We can have sympathy for

their personal grief.

But personal grief cannot be allowed to

rewrite public history or derail the

quest for public accountability.

The questions raised by General

Muanazi’s testimony under oath do not

disappear just because the man who was

meant to answer them has tragically

chosen to exit the stage. In fact, his

final act makes those questions even

more urgent. It makes the truth even

more important. The implications of this

blame game are chilling. If this

narrative is allowed to take hold, it

will be the final nail in the coffin for

whistleblowing in this country. Who will

ever come forward again? What police

officer will dare to implicate his

superior? What director general will

dare to expose his minister? They will

all remember the fate of Nalanla

Muanazi,

a man who told the truth and was then

accused of being responsible for a man’s

death. And this brings us to the final

unasked question in this whole tragic

saga. The question that nobody seems to

be asking Mutetwa’s family or his

political comrades is this. If General

Muinazi’s allegations were all lies, why

didn’t Nati Mutetwa simply do what he

did in 2019? Why didn’t he call a press

conference from the embassy in Paris?

Why didn’t he instruct his lawyers to

sue General Muanazi for 10 million rands

this time? Why didn’t he come back to

South Africa, look the nation in the

eye, and say, “I will clear my name.”

Why the stark difference in reaction?

What was it about this testimony from

this man that made the old playbook of

confident denial and aggressive lawsuits

utterly impossible to use? That question

is the key. and the silence in response

to it tells a story all of its own.

Think about the ultimate bitter

hypocrisy of this entire story. The man

who was constitutionally mandated to

oversee the law is accused of having

ordered his top cop to break it in the

most fundamental way. So this brings us

back to the central question. The

question in the title of this video, who

or what was really responsible for the

final act of Nati Mutetwa, was it the

words of General Muanazi, a man simply

doing his duty, a man who spoke the

truth under oath as required by the law?

Or was Nati Mutetwa a casualty of a much

larger, more sinister force? Was he a

victim of a system of political

corruption so demanding, so ruthless,

and so all-encompassing that once its

darkest secrets are exposed, it offers

no clean exit for those who have served

it? Was his death a simple act of a man

who could not face the shame? Or was it

the final violent act of a system

silencing one of its own before he could

be compelled under oath to tell even

more about the rot he had presided over

for so many years? We may never know for

sure. If this kind of deep analysis

matters to you, if you believe we must

protect the truth tellers and keep

exposing the rot, then please like this

video, share it with every South African

you know, and subscribe to this channel.

We will keep asking the tough questions

that the powerful desperately want us to

forget. Thank you for watching.