/ 29 September 2000

Now Meyer hauled up for hacking

If found guilty in a departmental hearing, Piet Meyer could be dismissed for misconduct before he is tried next year on a string of criminal charges Paul Kirk Disgraced and suspended former head of police organised crime units in KwaZulu- Natal, Senior Superintendent Piet Meyer, is in trouble again – this time for allegedly hacking into a police computer to gather damaging information on a former colleague who is to give evidence against him. Last week Meyer was summoned to appear before a departmental hearing to be held in Pinetown. This could see him dismissed from the police for misconduct before he is tried in court next year on a string of criminal charges. Meyer has been suspended on full pay. Among others, he is charged with stealing money from the police, stealing exhibits to destroy criminal cases against his friends and of running an elaborate and complicated extortion racket on casino owners. The departmental hearing will mirror these charges, but the prosecution need only prove that on the balance of probabilities Meyer is guilty of the offences. Unlike a court case, guilt does not need to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Police human resource management department representative Senior Superintendent Strini Govender, said any policeman can be dismissed for an offence without being convicted by a court. “We are dealing not with a criminal matter, but with misconduct. We could dismiss someone for misconduct even if they are found not guilty by a court of law. We only need to establish misconduct of a sufficiently severe nature,” Govender said. The most recent alleged incident of misconduct Meyer committed was, with the help of a policeman from the organised crime unit, illegally accessing the police central computer system to gather information on his former immediate junior and best friend, Superintendent Andrew “Spyker” Ludick. Ludick, who has since left the police force, is one of a number of prominent Durban personalities Meyer is prevented from contacting in any way. Ludick is due to give evidence against Meyer on several charges of corruption. Meyer is alleged to have accessed details of gun licences held by Ludick. It is believed that Meyer knew Ludick had bought a .22 rifle from a friend who had died before he could have the gun licence transferred. When Meyer discovered that Ludick had no licence for the gun, he allegedly hatched a plot to have Ludick’s home raided by police in the hope that the unlicenced rifle would be found. But Ludick had handed the firearm over to police after the owner’s death.

Early this month police took the decision not to departmentally prosecute Captain Johan Swanepoel for allegedly raping a cleaner at the organised crime unit. A source said police management were very worried Swanepoel – a key witness against Meyer – had been framed. Swanepoel’s alleged victim claims she was raped and assaulted at the unit’s office – on one occasion during working hours. However, charges were never laid against the policeman at the time of the rapes. The alleged victim – who once worked as an informer and undercover police operative for Meyer – pressed charges only shortly after her former boss was charged and Swanepoel’s name appeared on a list of witnesses.

The victim claimed she decided to lay a charge after being persuaded to do so by a female police officer. She claimed she had never heard of a white officer being convicted for raping a black subordinate The docket against Swanepoel contains two affidavits from the victim. The first was taken by a policeman the day she pressed charges and the second by an attorney. The second affidavit, which contains a great deal more detail than the first, was faxed to a number of media organisations from the organised crime unit under as yet unexplained circumstances. The case had not yet come to court and only the victim, her lawyer and police should have had a copy of the statement. Asked to comment on the case, Durban senior public prosecutor Barend Groen said he could not make any comment and that the merits of the case were for the courts to decide.