An urgent application by former Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) security chief Alexio Papadopulo has lifted the veil on details of a Commercial Crime Unit investigation into his dealings with alleged gang boss Ralph Stanfield.

On 20 July Papadopulo, who is now operating from Italy, launched a legal challenge to the search and seizures carried out on 5 May this year at his then place of work, Prasaâs Umjantshi House in Johannesburg, and at his then residence in Pretoria.

He has strongly denied any wrongdoing.

The preliminary urgent hearing was set down in the Pretoria high court yesterday (Thursday) but was postponed by agreement for the full challenge to the searches to be heard on 2 November.

In filing the legal action, Papadopulo has disclosed the South African Police Service (SAPS) affidavit used to obtain warrants from two separate magistrates â an affidavit that, in his own words, âplaces me within a larger organised crime and corruption investigation, whose central figures are said to be Mr Malusi Booi; Mr Ralph Stanfield and Ms Nicole Johnsonâ.

Booi is the former City of Cape Town mayoral committee member for human settlements, and allegations of his corrupt relationship with Stanfield and his wife Johnson are what sparked the current investigation.

Papadopuloâs urgent application sought to seal the evidence seized, which included the contents of his computer and cellphone, pending his main challenge to the legality of the warrants.

Yesterday, the urgent application was abandoned following an agreement that the contents are not shared with any third parties.

Suspicions of key role

However, Papadopuloâs challenge forced the SAPS investigators to elaborate on their suspicions of his key role in facilitating the inclusion of Stanfield in subcontracting arrangements on Prasaâs multibillion-rand Cape Town Central Line railway reconstruction project.

In an affidavit opposing Papadopuloâs application, lead investigator Colonel Carel âCallieâ Lourens sketched out the SAPS investigation of the process through which companies associated with Stanfield and Johnson are alleged to have secured contracts through Prasa worth an estimated R60-million.

Lourens stated, âThe source of this information, which I will not divulge due to the sensitivity of the information and for the purposes of safety, alleged that Mr Stanfieldâs connection with Prasa is through [Papadopulo] â¦

âThe investigative team and I subsequently investigated these allegations, and the investigation revealed that [Papadopulo] allegedly acted as an intermediary through whom Prasa tenders were obtained by facilitating subcontracting arrangements.â

Lourens reveals that investigators have evidence of at least one direct private meeting between Papadopulo and Stanfield â and that they have a witness who states that Papadopulo personally introduced Johnson as the âsocial facilitatorâ responsible for security on the central railway lines in Cape Town.

The evidence bolsters allegations first set out in an amaBhungane exposé in March this year â and throws a critical light on an independent investigation commissioned by Prasa and disclosed to Parliament this week that could not establish âany veracity in the claims made in the articleâ and concluded they were âspeculative and unsubstantiatedâ.

In his application, Papadopulo stated, âI deny the allegations of wrongdoing made against me, but I do not seek in this application to have this Court decide the merits of those allegations. This is a challenge to the lawfulness of the warrant, not a defence to the criminal charges that may follow.â

âLawful dutiesâ

Nevertheless, he outlines his defence, arguing he was just carrying out his lawful duties in terms of a signed protocol to rehabilitate the Central Line and relocate communities that had taken up residence on the railway.

âThe conduct that the warrant sweeps up â meetings with community leaders, the sharing of contact details, the facilitation of lists of small enterprises and labour, and the pressing for security variation orders â was the mandated operation of the signed, parliamentary-overseen programme I have described â¦

âThe warrant inexplicably captures the whole of that lawful working record as presumptively criminal. It is therefore not properly anchored and reaches far beyond anything the suspected offences could justify.

âGlomix and Yibaninati [Stanfield-linked companies mentioned in the warrant] only performed cleaning services and vegetation control sub-contracts via the main PSIRA-registered [the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority] security contractor being Mzansi Securifire, and not core security work.

âSMME [Small, Medium, and Micro Enterprises] and labour lists were provided by community representatives and ward Councillors after formal briefings and in accordance with the Social Compact and National Development Plan requirements. I at no stage forced and/or allocated any sub-contractors.â

Warrant âprocured on an untrue factâ

On the search warrant, Papadopulo argues that it was âprocured on a fact that was untrueâ.

Here he is referring to a claim that he owned the house where he was living, whereas he says it is owned by his aunt.

In addition, he claims the warrant is âoverbroad and lacking in particularity to the point of operating as a general warrantâ.

In its counter, SAPS stands by the search warrants as justified and sufficiently precise.

At the hearing in November, both sides will have the opportunity to deal in more detail with the evidence used to obtain the Johannesburg and Pretoria warrants, but it is worth sketching the outlines of what is clearly a sprawling investigation based on many of the same red flags highlighted in the amaBhungane exposé. 

Roots of the SAPS investigation

In his opposing affidavit, Lourens sets out the genesis of what led to the SAPS investigation into Papadopulo.

âIn February 2023, a CAS case number 1101/03/2023 was registered in Cape Town. Our office received a complaint alleging irregular and corrupt activities purportedly committed by the City of Cape Townâs Mayoral Committee Member (Mayco) of Human Settlements, Malusi Booi.

âThe complaint alleged that Mr Booi received gratification in the form of cash to influence his decisions as a Mayco member for Human Settlements, with the aim of ensuring that Glomix and other companies associated with Ralph Stanfield and Nicole Johnson were awarded tenders from the City or local government authorities.

âIn furtherance of the investigation, the investigation team obtained sworn statements from witnesses, conducted bank statement analysis, and examined seized digital and hard-copy evidence, all of which confirm the unlawful relationship between Malusi Booi, Ralph Stanfield, and his associates. These materials provided prima facie evidence of unlawful relationships involving City and Provincial government officials, as well as other individuals and businesses associated with Mr Ralph Stanfield.â

The case against Booi, Stanfield, Johnson and their co-accused has been provisionally withdrawn.

âQuest for tendersâ

Lourens alleges the purpose of the network was to obtain tenders from the Cape Town Human Settlements directorate but also, crucially, from Prasa, the latter targeting security contracts and various subcontracts.

He alleges further investigation revealed that Glomix, whose sole director is Johnson, had a service-level agreement with one of the main contractors selected to reinstall high-voltage lines and other overhead track equipment, Mpande Business Holdings.

Lourens notes, âAccording to the information obtained, the service-level agreement stipulates that labourers employed by Mpande are sourced through Glomix, while Glomix supplies the security services responsible for safeguarding Mpandeâs work on the railway lines.

âFurther, one of the security companies involved is Subtiguard Protection Services, owned by Sedick Petersen, Ms Johnsonâs brother.

âIt is alleged that this company initially lacked the required PSIRA [the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority] accreditation. The PSIRA accreditation was allegedly obtained after the contract had already been awarded.â

Lourens says this contract was âpurportedlyâ facilitated through Papadopulo.

The Lourens affidavit also shows that investigators were able to get human sources to back up some of the claims.

He appears to have testimony from an unnamed person responsible for transporting Papadopulo from the airport to the Pepperclub Hotel on Loop Street in Cape Town.

âThe source indicated that⦠following the instruction of Mr Ralph Stanfield, he drove [Papdopulo] to the MBT garage-private business premises located in Bishop Lavis where Mr Stanfield conducts his business. [Papdopulo] attended a private meeting with Mr Stanfield at this location.â

Lourens states that this information was subsequently corroborated through a subpoena served on the hotel.

âThree black booksâ

The Lourens affidavit also underlines the crucial role of the so-called âthree black booksâ seized in a 2024 raid on Stanfieldâs business premises, which appeared to consist of notes of Stanfieldâs business dealings and communications â including many references to âAlexâ or âthe Greekâ.

Lourens states that SAPS experts verified the handwriting was Stanfieldâs.

He says, âAlthough not all entries in the black books have been verified, the transactions that have been investigated and confirmed as accurate give rise to a reasonable suspicion and belief that the entries relating to [Papadopulo] are likewise accurate.â

Lourens also reveals that a witness, in a sworn statement, states that he was present at private meetings between Stanfield and Papadopulo during which security contracts for Stanfield-associated companies were discussed.

In addition, Lourens alleges Papadopulo was directly involved in putting forward Johnson as an appropriate facilitator.

âOne of the witnesses confirms that they were instructed by Mr Stanfield in or around September 2022 to attend a meeting with [Papadopulo] and Ms Johnson at Prasaâs offices in Salt River.

âAdditionally, the witness states that [Papadopulo] introduced Ms Johnson as the Social Facilitator responsible for security on the Central railway lines in Cape Town.

âSecurity contracts promisedâ

âFurthermore, the witness confirms that Mr Stanfield told him he would not be in attendance, as he and [Papadopulo] had already met privately, during which [Papadopulo] had promised him security contracts on the Central lines of the railway lines in Cape Town and said the meeting would be only a formality.

âThis information corroborated the initial witnessâs account of the private meetings between Mr Stanfield and [Papadopulo], as well as the statements obtained from the project managers of Prasa and Transnet RNC [Rail Network Construction] responsible for the project referred to. These statements indicated that the appointment of Ms Johnson and the security contracts were executed without following a proper procurement process and without their input or consultation as the duly appointed project managers.

âA Prasa employee submitted a sworn statement indicating that [Papadopulo], as head of security, exceeded his authority by attempting to push for the onboarding of a social facilitator, Ms Johnson, and by forcing the entry into subcontractor contracts to address security aspects on the Central corridor line.â

âMultiple paymentsâ

Elsewhere, Lourens alleges that according to âinformation receivedâ, multiple payments were made for Papadopuloâs benefit during 2022 and that access to his devices was necessary to obtain âcorroboratory evidence to prove and/or disprove the allegationsâ.

âSo far, the investigation has uncovered that Mzansi Securefire as the main [security] contractor was to go on open market for the submission of quotations for ⦠sub-contracts, yet [Papadopulo] already at this stage had engaged Ralph Stanfield and promised him the contracts for which Mzansi Securefire paid approximately R60-million to Glomix and Yibaninati, both companies being associated with Ralph Stanfield and ... Nicole Johnson.â

In his application, Papadopulo accuses SAPS of trying to get the court to determine the ultimate criminal merits: âThat is not the issue in Part A. I do not ask this Court to decide whether I committed any offence, or whether evidence will ultimately be admissible. I seek a narrow, evidence-neutral holding arrangement pending judicial review of the warrants in Part B.â

He also argues that the extensive narrative involving Prasa, City of Cape Town procurement, third parties, alleged associations, hotel and transport arrangements, notebooks, emails and confidential witnesses is impermissibly vague.

âI deny any allegation that I acted unlawfully or corruptly. Much of the narrative is hearsay, conclusion or undisclosed-source material. I cannot meaningfully answer unidentified witnesses or documents not produced. The State respondents deliberately withhold identities and portions of the record while asking the Court to accept the conclusions as established fact.â DM

This story was produced by the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism

. Sign up for their

newsletter.