THE OTHER ILLEGAL ARRESTS: MARKUS HOUSEKEEPER
The conversation is one of the most interesting pieces of evidence that exist. And in my view is essential listening for anyone wanting any understanding of what happened and just how far consortium members were happy to go.
The Secret, Unofficial And Illegal Raid And Arrest By Sergeant Stevens And Wouter De Swardt
The audio can be accessed and downloaded with this link. It is essential listening to fully understand how well planned, premeditated, and organised the operation of 14 December was and how it had nothing to do with arresting someone for a crime, but arresting someone to disguise a number of very significant crimes.
The housekeeper was arrested, handcuffed, removed from the property to enable an illegal eviction. Kept at 32 fisherman’s bend for the duration of my arrest and then once i had been taken away he was let go.
I only learned what had happened on the day of the arrest a couple of months after release from Pollsmoor when the housekeeper of 16 LR contacted me, feeling duty-bound, to let me know what happened that day.
AUDIO RECORDING- HOUSEKEEPER TESTIMONY SECRET IILLEGAL AND UNOFFICAL SAPS OPERATION
Highlights of the Housekeeper’s Testimony: How the December 14 Arrests Were Used to Disguise Illegal Evictions
On December 14, 2022, both Markus, the housekeeper, and Darren Russell were illegally arrested in a coordinated operation designed to disguise two unlawful evictions as legitimate police actions.
Markus describes how SAPS officers—some real, some impersonated—stormed the property, forcibly removing him under threats of violence, while simultaneously seizing control of the residence for the landlords.
The transcript reveals explicit collusion between private individuals and law enforcement, proving that the arrests were never about justice—but about executing illegal property takeovers under false pretenses.
Missing Pieces Of The Puzzle
The conversation was also extremely beneficial in identifying the numerous missing pieces of the puzzle.
To avoid excessive detail in this document, the basics were: On the morning of the arrest, the participants divided into two groups. The Investigating Officer Serg Stevens, the other officers from Belville Commercial Crime, the Hout Bay SAPS officers, the Hawks officers, and the Special Task Force all went to Fisherman's Bend, while a smaller contingent of SAPS officers friendly to Mr de Swardt went to 16 Leirmans Road, led by Mr de Swardt and DENIS DALTON.
Taking advantage of SAPS' involvement and the distraction of the arrest at 32 FB, during which the client was unable to respond, Mr de Swardt conducted an unofficial, secret, and highly illegal raid and arrest at 16 LR.
After tricking their way into the property and claiming to be on police business, they arrested the housekeeper, searched the house for OS, and were about to apprehend OS's girlfriend. However, they discovered she was a European national and believed this could have consequences.
EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT LEIRMANS RD HOUSEKEEPER
DR: Did you see when, after I left, did you see Wouter with the keys for Liermans? Because I mean, he must have, who did he get the keys from?
HK: Wouter, Wouter, had the keys.
DR: He had the keys from you?
HK: All the time. Because he is the one who opened us open for us when we, we wanted to get our things from him.
DR: Oh, maybe it was Fisherman's Keys, then he gave to Wouter, um,
HK: Fisherman's Key.
DR: Yeah. So Wouter took the Lierman's keys from you?
HK: Yes. He, he took [THE Leirmans KEYS] from me.
Housekeeper Handcuffed And Arrested
The housekeeper was handcuffed. He and OS's girlfriend were aggressively questioned about where OS was, and they told me to bring him to the house. The girlfriend called his phone, but he was at work and did not answer it.
The girlfriend was informed that she would not be arrested if she left immediately. The housekeeper was instructed to hand over the property keys and was led to 32 FB in handcuffs, where the official arrest was taking place.
On the way there, Mr de Swardt called IB (the owner of 16 LR and KB's wife) to confirm that they had successfully reclaimed their property as directed. He was heard saying, "We've got him; he won't be returning this time."
The arrest was carried out in secret, without official authorisation, and was highly illegal. There was no arrest warrant or official paperwork authorising the raid. The only arrest warrant and seizure warrant were linked to the arrest at 32 FB. Given the volume of paperwork required and produced, this was not an oversight.
It's also unlikely that the other officers were unaware of the covert operation, given that Wouter de Swardt, Dennis Daltons, and SAPS officers separated from the main party at the entrance to 32 FB. As the author, instigator, and effectively lead 'officer' of the arrest, with everyone fully aware of the arrest's significance to Wouter de Swardt, it's equally unlikely that an excuse was given for his temporary absence at the critical moment.
Especially since Mr de Swardt returned with the same officers and Denis Dalton had the housekeeper of 16 LR in handcuffs.
Every senior officer present would have seen the arrest warrant and realised they only had business at 32 FB. I'm not sure if the most junior police officers knew. But everyone else must have
TRANSCRIPT DOCUMENT
The Housekeeper’s Testimony: How the December 14 Arrests Were Used to Disguise Illegal Evictions
On December 14, 2022, both Markus, the housekeeper, and Darren Russell were illegally arrested in a coordinated operation designed to disguise two unlawful evictions as legitimate police actions.
Markus describes how SAPS officers—some real, some impersonated—stormed the property, forcibly removing him under threats of violence, while simultaneously seizing control of the residence for the landlords.
The transcript reveals explicit collusion between private individuals and law enforcement, proving that the arrests were never about justice—but about executing illegal property takeovers under false pretenses.
The Only Witness Were Removed And Or Imprisoned
There was no one to worry about discovering or doing anything about their illegal actions because I was the only official tenant of the property and was now under arrest, on my way to Hout Bay police station cells and eventually to Pollsmoor, where the consortium would do their best to keep me there.
It was also no coincidence that Keith Broads Attornyes filed an appeal on the afternoon of December 13th, challenging the decision to include oral evidence made a week earlier.
The appeal required discussion, agreement, and execution, not an impulsive decision. The arrest occurred just 19 hours later. The removal of the sole opponent in those proceedings, combined with the seizure of all devices, data, and documents, removed any opportunity for an opponent to effectively defend their appeal.
The rest went almost like clockwork, with Keith attempting to push the appeal through while I was incarcerated. The only minor setback came when the judge refused to hear the case unless the tenant was informed of it.
Then came the surreal experience of being summoned from my prison cell to the chief's office, only to find a sheriff waiting to serve me with those papers.
It was a pointless notification because I had no idea how I was supposed to instruct Pollsmoor's attorney. Exactly what they had hoped for.
TRANSCRIPT DOCUMENT
The Housekeeper’s Testimony: How the December 14 Arrests Were Used to Disguise Illegal Evictions
On December 14, 2022, both Markus, the housekeeper, and Darren Russell were illegally arrested in a coordinated operation designed to disguise two unlawful evictions as legitimate police actions.
Markus describes how SAPS officers—some real, some impersonated—stormed the property, forcibly removing him under threats of violence, while simultaneously seizing control of the residence for the landlords.
The transcript reveals explicit collusion between private individuals and law enforcement, proving that the arrests were never about justice—but about executing illegal property takeovers under false pretenses.
The Need For No Opponent
In the papers Keith Broad submitted to the courts Keith included everything he knew he could not include if there was an opponent.
The News24 articles. Failing to mention they had placed them.
The dossier of Mr de Swardt exploiting the victims of their own plan to make sure the hundreds of bookings for the summer season continued as if nothing had happened so guests would turn up to find they had no villa Paula's purporting to have a list seventeen double bookings when in fact only four were.
The protection order obtained by perjury.
Direct references to the various civil matters as if entirely unrelated to Keith
Direct references to the various criminal matters, also as if unrelated.
Listing PDs October stunt at Camps Bay SAPS but failing to mention the charge laid by Paula Disberry was a malicious prosecution precisely to aid Keith Broad and to aid Mr de Swardt in objecting to bail and sabotaging the bail application.
Listing the arrest and charges of August but failing to mention it was Keiths own malicious prosecution . and also failing to mention the charges were thrown out.
And adding “fraud” to an arrest and bail application where it had no part,
Listing Paula’s eviction proceedings without referencing the matter ended in a mutual settlement
Listing the dockets opened in Dec21/Jan 22, by Chaffaitz, but failing to mention the investigating officer had closed
the docket stating there was no evidence of fraud.
Separately listing the “fraud investigation “ by Belville Commercial, failing to mention the docket consisted only of the items of evidence, all gathered by PD. Knowing Keith was the reason I had been arrested.
And when the matter was eventually heard a day after the charges were thrown out, that was not mentioned either.
The list of allegations already addressed, claiming I had not paid rent in a year and had caused extensive damage. As well as he had no idea out the plan to sublet.
The court application is a masterclass in perjury, fabrication, misdirection and deceit. Smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that every inclusion in the application was authored by the consortium.
EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT LEIRMANS RD HOUSEKEEPER
HK: And you know it, surprisingly, I never thought, I didn't know that he's just a P.I, you call it a P.I. Private investigator, right?
HK: I thought he is the police chief or something.
HK: He's a boss, boss, boss. Because he was so in charge, even from Liermans up to Fishermans.
HK: The, the guy was just, this was the one who was managing everything.
HK: Of course, I realized later on that at Fishermens that there were some other white guys who were really SAPS.
TRANSCRIPT DOCUMENT
Highlights of the Housekeeper’s Testimony: How the December 14 Arrests Were Used to Disguise Illegal Evictions
On December 14, 2022, both Markus, the housekeeper, and Darren Russell were illegally arrested in a coordinated operation designed to disguise two unlawful evictions as legitimate police actions.
Markus describes how SAPS officers—some real, some impersonated—stormed the property, forcibly removing him under threats of violence, while simultaneously seizing control of the residence for the landlords.
The transcript reveals explicit collusion between private individuals and law enforcement, proving that the arrests were never about justice—but about executing illegal property takeovers under false pretenses.
Inge
Inge was not merely a passive property owner; she was a direct client of Wouter de Swardt and played a pivotal role in orchestrating the illegal evictions disguised as arrests. As the owner of Leirmans Road, she stood to benefit significantly from the unlawful takeover of the property, and her involvement was far from incidental.
Her property became the focal point of one of the most brazenly corrupt operations, in which SAPS was manipulated into acting as a private enforcement arm for de Swardt and his clients. The housekeeper’s testimony provides crucial insight into Inge’s involvement, as well as the premeditated nature of the eviction—long before the fabricated criminal allegations were used as a smokescreen.
The actions of Inge and her direct collaboration with de Swardt expose the coordinated effort to strip the rightful occupant of their home and business. Her willingness to participate in these fraudulent proceedings, and her connection to those who executed them, is evidenced by the immediate transition of the property post-eviction. Every aspect of her involvement demonstrates prior knowledge and intent, removing any plausible deniability
FACT FILE
INGE'S ROLE
Inge, as the owner of Leirmans Road and a client of Wouter de Swardt, actively orchestrated illegal evictions disguised as arrests to benefit from the property's unlawful takeover. Testimony and evidence reveal her direct involvement in this coordinated effort, premeditated long before the fabricated criminal allegations were used as a smokescreen, eliminating any plausible deniability
New Owners
The rapid takeover of the property by the new owners was not a coincidence—it was the final step in a long-planned operation designed to ensure the seamless handover of a stolen home and business. Within hours of the illegal eviction disguised as an arrest, they began extensive renovations, a move that only reinforced the fact that their occupation had been premeditated well in advance.
The housekeeper’s testimony sheds light on the extent of this preparation, describing how belongings were immediately removed—some discarded, others kept—further demonstrating that the transition was planned, and that the new owners knew they would be taking possession long before the legal owner was forcibly removed. The speed and efficiency with which they moved in, altered the property, and seized valuable assets underscore the premeditated nature of this corrupt scheme.
Not only were these actions deliberate, but they were carried out with total disregard for legality, property rights, or ethical conduct. The housekeeper’s first-hand account of how they methodically took over the residence reveals a level of planning that could not have been improvised—it was executed with precision and absolute confidence that no legal challenge would stand in their way.
FACT FILE
RAPID TAKEOVER
The rapid takeover of the property following the illegal eviction, disguised as an arrest, reveals a meticulously planned operation. The housekeeper’s testimony highlights how belongings were swiftly removed and renovations began within hours, underscoring the deliberate and coordinated nature of this scheme, executed with complete disregard for legality and property rights.
Dogs
The treatment of the dogs after the operation was nothing short of inhumane. These were not just animals—they were my dogs, my companions, my family. The new owners, who took immediate occupation following the unlawful eviction, discarded them with the same ease that they sent me to Pollsmoor Prison. Their actions were not just cruel; they were calculated, designed to erase everything that tied me to the property.
Rather than ensuring their safety, the new owners abandoned them, condemning them to starvation and suffering. They made no effort to provide care or shelter, instead treating them as an inconvenience. This was not mere neglect—it was an intentional act of cruelty, a further demonstration of their complete disregard for life.
Their motivation was clear: they wanted to enjoy their summer holiday at the property, reveling in the transformation I had undertaken while showing no concern for the lives they destroyed in the process. The housekeeper witnessed this firsthand, observing how the dogs were locked out, left to fend for themselves, and subjected to suffering as a direct result of the new owners' deliberate actions.
However, their fate was ultimately changed by their previous trainer, who, after being informed of their mistreatment, intervened to rescue them. This intervention prevented what was, in effect, a slow and deliberate act of killing—one carried out not with violence, but with neglect.
This brutal treatment of the dogs serves as yet another testament to the ruthless nature of the takeover. The new owners were not satisfied with simply seizing the property; they sought to erase all traces of my presence, even if that meant discarding living creatures who had been part of my life for years. Their callousness in abandoning the dogs was no different from their willingness to conspire in my imprisonment. The housekeeper’s testimony is critical in exposing this final act of cruelty and the complete lack of humanity displayed by those responsible.
The treatment of the dogs after the operation was nothing short of inhumane. The new owners, who took immediate occupation following the unlawful eviction, discarded the animals like unwanted rubbish—effectively killing them without carrying out the act themselves. The housekeeper’s testimony exposes the cold and calculated manner in which they handled the dogs, treating them as disposable rather than living beings deserving of care.
The animals, once loyal and protective, were no longer convenient for the new occupants. Instead of making arrangements for their well-being, the new owners simply abandoned them, ensuring their suffering and eventual demise. The housekeeper witnessed the deliberate disregard for the dogs’ survival, as they were locked out, starved, and left without any form of shelter or assistance. This was not negligence—it was a conscious decision to erase their presence, just as had been done to the rightful occupant of the home.
EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT LEIRMANS RD HOUSEKEEPER
DR: Because why did they refuse to, to, to, to give them a, a warrant of arrest in the first place.
HK: They had to go, I don't know where they, they went. Is it Wynberg or to Cape Town, I don't know where I, I dunno where they got their warrant.
HK: So, uh, it also made me realize that, uh, maybe Darren has got some guys, yeah, he has, he, he has people maybe at the court.
HK: What, what, what, because he was so furious to why the other Magistrate refused to give him the, uh, the warrant. I don't know which Magistrate it is this is Hout Bay or, I don't know, Wynber, I don't know.
HK: Yeah. So, I knew that, uh, It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a battle that it'll be very tough for you maybe to win.
However, the dogs were ultimately saved from death and further mistreatment by their previous trainer, who intervened after being informed of their suffering. Upon learning of the conditions they had been left in, she took action to remove them from danger, providing them with the care and protection they had been cruelly denied.
Her testimony further solidifies the evidence of wilful neglect and intentional abandonment by the new owners.
This act of cruelty serves as yet another demonstration of the ruthless, premeditated nature of the takeover. It was not just about seizing a property—it was about erasing everything associated with its former owner, down to the very last living creature. The housekeeper’s statements make it clear: the new owners knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it with absolute disregard for both the law and basic human decency.
The treatment of the dogs after the operation was nothing short of inhumane. The new owners, who took immediate occupation following the unlawful eviction, discarded the animals like unwanted rubbish—effectively killing them without carrying out the act themselves. The housekeeper’s testimony exposes the cold and calculated manner in which they handled the dogs, treating them as disposable rather than living beings deserving of care.
The animals, once loyal and protective, were no longer convenient for the new occupants. Instead of making arrangements for their well-being, the new owners simply abandoned them, ensuring their suffering and eventual demise. The housekeeper witnessed the deliberate disregard for the dogs’ survival, as they were locked out, starved, and left without any form of shelter or assistance.
This was not negligence—it was a conscious decision to erase their presence, just as had been done to the rightful occupant of the home.
This act of cruelty serves as yet another demonstration of the ruthless, premeditated nature of the takeover. It was not just about seizing a property—it was about erasing everything associated with its former owner, down to the very last living creature. The housekeeper’s statements make it clear: the new owners knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it with absolute disregard for both the law and basic human decency.
The treatment of the dogs during the operation was alarming. The housekeeper witnessed first-hand how the police and those involved disregarded the well-being of the animals, treating them as obstacles rather than living beings. Statements from the housekeeper illustrate the distress caused to the animals, the manner in which they were handled, and the complete lack of regard for their welfare during the operation.
EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT LEIRMANS RD HOUSEKEEPER
DR: Wow. Okay. Um, what was I gonna say? And basically, as soon as they moved in, they obviously planned it was because they, they knew exactly what they were gonna do in terms of changing stuff.
DR: You said that they took loads of stuff from upstairs and threw it down in the garage.
HK: There was broken stuff and then there was loads of stuff put on the street.
DR: And anybody that wanted it can just take it, this is all my stuff, I assume. Well, everything in it was mine.
HK: Whatever that they didn't like it was put. Okay.
HK: They, there were some other things that typically it was your personal belongings.
FACT FILE
DOGS INHUMANE TREATMENT
Following the unlawful eviction, the new owners abandoned my dogs, leaving them to starve and suffer without care or shelter. This deliberate act of cruelty, witnessed by the housekeeper, was part of a calculated effort to erase all traces of my presence. Thankfully, their previous trainer intervened, rescuing the dogs from further neglect and mistreatment.
Corruption
This was not just an abuse of power—it was a well-coordinated act of corruption, executed with precision and total impunity. Every aspect of this operation, from the fabricated criminal allegations to the unlawful police involvement, was designed to serve private financial interests under the pretense of legal enforcement. The housekeeper’s testimony, alongside irrefutable evidence, exposes the extent to which law enforcement and private individuals colluded to orchestrate the illegal seizure of my home and business.
The involvement of SAPS officers was not incidental—it was fundamental. Instead of acting in accordance with the law, officers willingly served as enforcers for those who had conspired to take over the property. From the moment they arrived, their actions demonstrated a total disregard for due process. They forcibly removed me under false pretenses, ensured my imprisonment, and handed the property over to private individuals who had no legal claim to it.
At the center of this corruption was Wouter de Swardt, an individual with no official rank yet absolute authority over the operation. The housekeeper’s statements, along with further evidence, confirm that law enforcement deferred to his instructions, treating him as though he was in command. He dictated the course of action, controlled the officers, and ensured that his client, Inge, took immediate possession of the property. This was not a legal process—it was a premeditated land grab facilitated through corruption at every level.
The sheer scale of procedural violations is staggering. Officers manipulated legal mechanisms to justify an eviction that was, in reality, a criminal conspiracy. They used threats, intimidation, and outright lies to remove me from the property, all while protecting those who stood to benefit. Their unchecked power and willingness to engage in fraudulent conduct reveal a system that has been completely compromised.
Despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, no consequences have followed for those involved. The failure to investigate, prosecute, or even acknowledge the corruption at play speaks volumes about the extent of systemic rot within law enforcement. This was never about justice or the law—it was about bypassing both to achieve a predetermined outcome. The housekeeper’s testimony is one of the most critical pieces of evidence in exposing this carefully orchestrated criminal operation.
The operation itself was riddled with evidence of corruption, abuse of power, and improper conduct. From threats and coercion to clear procedural violations, the housekeeper’s statements reveal the extent to which legal and ethical boundaries were ignored. The involvement of law enforcement in facilitating a private agenda raises severe concerns, as does the manner in which certain individuals were granted unchecked authority over the proceedings.
EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT LEIRMANS RD HOUSEKEEPER
HK: I thought he is the police chief or something.
HK: He's a boss, boss, boss. Because he was so in charge, even from Liermans up to Fishermans.
HK: The, the guy was just, this was the one who was managing everything.
HK: Of course, I realized later on that at Fishermens that there were some other white guys who were really SAPS.
FACT FILE
ABUSE OF POWER
This operation, driven by fabricated allegations and unlawful police involvement, was a meticulously planned act of corruption, executed with impunity to serve private financial interests. SAPS officers acted as enforcers, disregarding due process to forcibly remove me, ensure my imprisonment, and hand over my property to individuals with no legal claim. Wouter de Swardt, with no official authority, orchestrated the operation, controlling law enforcement to facilitate a premeditated land grab. Despite overwhelming evidence, systemic corruption within law enforcement has shielded those responsible from accountability, as exposed by the housekeeper's critical testimony.
Size of operation
The sheer scale of the operation was excessive and deliberately intimidating. This was not a standard legal intervention—it was an overwhelming show of force, designed to suppress any resistance and execute an unlawful eviction under the pretense of an arrest.
The number of officers deployed, the aggressive tactics used, and the calculated coordination of resources all point to a premeditated operation carried out with military-like precision.
The housekeeper’s testimony provides a stark account of just how vast this operation was. SAPS personnel, some in tactical gear, stormed the property with the force and numbers one would expect in a high-risk criminal raid, not a civil matter.
The scale of police presence far exceeded what could ever be justified, further proving that the entire event was a planned manoeuvre to eliminate opposition and swiftly transfer possession of the property.
The presence of specialized units and the immediate transition of control to private individuals make it clear that this was no ordinary police action. It was a carefully orchestrated operation in which law enforcement became the private enforcers of those who had conspired to seize the property.
Every detail—the premeditated planning, the overwhelming numbers, and the tactical execution—demonstrates that this was not about law enforcement, but about ensuring a predetermined outcome at any cost.
The sheer scale of the operation raises critical questions.
The number of officers deployed, the aggressive manner in which they executed the raid, and the level of force used all indicate that this was not a standard legal procedure but rather a highly coordinated effort designed to overwhelm and eliminate any resistance. The housekeeper's statements provide a ground-level account of the magnitude of the operation and the excessive show of force deployed.
FACT FILE
PREMEDITATED INTIMIDATION
The operation was a coordinated display of excessive force and corruption, designed to suppress resistance and unlawfully transfer possession of my property. SAPS personnel acted as private enforcers, using military-like tactics to ensure a predetermined outcome, as evidenced by the housekeeper's critical testimony.
Police operation
From the moment the police arrived at the property, it was clear they were not there to uphold the law but to execute a predetermined plan. Under the false pretence of a lawful arrest, they forced their way inside, showing complete disregard for due process, property rights, and the legal protections that should have been afforded.
The housekeeper’s testimony provides a critical account of the calculated intimidation, coercion, and abuse of power that followed.
Instead of following legal protocols, officers acted as enforcers for those orchestrating the unlawful eviction. They treated the property’s legal occupant as a criminal, despite the complete absence of any legitimate justification for their actions. Their threats, aggression, and willingness to violate fundamental rights highlight the extent to which SAPS had been co-opted into a private agenda.
The police’s complicity went beyond mere participation—they facilitated every step of the illegal handover. They ensured that Wouter de Swardt’s instructions were carried out without challenge, allowing the new owners to take possession immediately. Their actions were not in service of justice but rather in direct opposition to it, demonstrating a level of corruption that fundamentally undermines the integrity of law enforcement.
The housekeeper’s first-hand account exposes the true nature of the police operation. This was not an impartial execution of duty—it was an organized, systematic effort to remove an individual from their home and business under completely false pretences.
The abuse of authority, the level of force used, and the absence of any legal justification make it clear that this was not just misconduct—it was a criminal act carried out under the guise of law enforcement.
From the moment the police gained entry under false pretenses to the way they handled those inside, their actions were both aggressive and unlawful.
The housekeeper’s account reveals how officers conducted themselves, including acts of intimidation, threats, and blatant disregard for due process. The involvement of specific individuals in leading the operation further underscores the deep-rooted irregularities in how this was carried out.
FACT FILE
ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
From the outset, the police operation was not about law enforcement but the execution of a predetermined plan under false pretenses. Officers violated due process, acted as enforcers for private agendas, and facilitated every step of an unlawful property seizure. The housekeeper’s testimony exposes the calculated intimidation, threats, and blatant abuse of power, highlighting deep-rooted corruption and a complete disregard for justice.
Landlords
The landlords were not passive observers in this operation—they were active participants who ensured that the illegal takeover was executed smoothly and to their benefit. Their role went far beyond merely allowing the eviction to take place; they worked in coordination with law enforcement, Wouter de Swardt, and the new owners to ensure that the transition of the property was seamless and irreversible.
The housekeeper’s testimony provides a crucial account of their involvement, from their presence during key moments of the operation to their interactions with the police.
They were not merely beneficiaries of the eviction; they were facilitators. Their staff played an instrumental role in overseeing the property handover, disposing of belongings, and ensuring that any resistance was swiftly dealt with.
This was not just about property ownership—it was about collusion between landlords, private enforcers, and corrupt law enforcement to orchestrate a land grab. The landlords’ complicity in this unlawful operation was deliberate, and their actions before, during, and after the eviction reveal a premeditated strategy to unlawfully acquire the property while shielding themselves from direct legal consequences.
Their close coordination with Wouter de Swardt, law enforcement, and the new owners illustrates the full extent of their involvement in this corrupt scheme.
The landlords played an instrumental role in facilitating the transition of the property. Their staff were actively involved, and their presence at key moments reinforces the extent of their involvement. The housekeeper’s testimony sheds light on how they interacted with law enforcement and how they positioned themselves in the aftermath of the operation, ensuring that their interests were safeguarded at all costs.
FACT FILE
ACTIVE ROLE OF LANDLORDS
The landlords were active participants in the illegal property takeover, coordinating with law enforcement, Wouter de Swardt, and the new owners to ensure a seamless and irreversible transition. Far from passive observers, they facilitated the eviction, with their staff overseeing the handover and disposing of belongings.
References to Wouter de Swardt
Wouter de Swardt was not just involved in this operation—he was at the center of it, directing every critical action with complete authority. Despite having no official rank or legal standing in law enforcement, he operated as though he was in command, with officers following his orders without hesitation.
The housekeeper’s testimony makes it clear that Wouter de Swardt held the real power, dictating the course of events and ensuring that his private agenda was executed without interference.
His influence was so pervasive that even senior police officers appeared to defer to him. Witnesses, including the housekeeper, recall how he gave instructions that were followed unquestioningly, reinforcing the perception that he was the one truly in charge. This perception was not accidental—Wouter de Swardt deliberately positioned himself as the authority figure, using his connections within law enforcement to manipulate procedures and bypass legal obstacles.
The housekeeper’s account also details his direct interactions with the landlords and new owners, further cementing his role as the orchestrator of the entire scheme. It was Wouter de Swardt who ensured that the police carried out their actions without resistance, that the legal occupant was removed under false pretenses, and that the property was handed over seamlessly to those who had conspired with him. His involvement was not incidental—it was integral to the success of the unlawful eviction and the subsequent takeover.
The housekeeper’s statements provide undeniable proof of Wouter de Swardt’s deep entanglement in this operation. He was not just an enabler—he was the driving force, executing a carefully calculated plan that relied on deception, coercion, and corruption at every level. His role in manipulating law enforcement for personal and financial gain is one of the most damning aspects of this case, revealing a dangerous precedent of private individuals wielding unchecked power over the legal system.
Wouter de Swardt’s role in the operation is a recurring theme throughout the housekeeper’s statements. His authority was perceived as unquestionable, with even law enforcement seemingly deferring to him.
The housekeeper’s remarks indicate that he was treated as the orchestrator of events, giving orders and making decisions that dictated the course of action. His perceived status as a law enforcement authority figure further complicates the legitimacy of the entire operation.
FACT FILE
THE CENTRAL ORCHESTRATOR
Wouter de Swardt was the driving force behind the operation, wielding unchecked authority despite lacking any official rank in law enforcement. Officers followed his instructions without question, and even senior police appeared to defer to him. The housekeeper’s testimony reveals his calculated manipulation of law enforcement, landlords, and new owners to ensure the seamless execution of his agenda.
Housekeeper's Experience
The housekeeper’s firsthand experience provides an unfiltered, damning perspective on the events as they unfolded. From the moment law enforcement tricked their way onto the property to the final moments of the operation, their testimony exposes the brutal reality of the illegal eviction and the severe abuse of power that accompanied it.
The housekeeper recounts the threats, intimidation, and sheer force used to carry out the operation. The police did not act as impartial enforcers of the law but as willing accomplices in a carefully orchestrated scheme.
The housekeeper was forcibly removed, threatened with violence, and subjected to an environment of terror designed to silence any resistance. Their statements detail the calculated aggression used by law enforcement, including threats of being shot, the confiscation of keys to facilitate the illegal takeover, and the immediate handover of the property to private individuals who had no lawful claim to it.
Throughout the ordeal, the housekeeper witnessed how Wouter de Swardt operated with impunity, issuing commands that officers followed without question. His apparent authority over the police, combined with the landlords’ direct involvement, left no doubt that this was not a lawful eviction but a premeditated act of dispossession under the guise of law enforcement.
The housekeeper’s experience is not just an account of an unlawful act—it is a testament to the deep-rooted corruption that allowed it to happen. Their testimony is one of the most crucial pieces of evidence in proving the illegal nature of the operation, the complicity of those involved, and the calculated effort to erase any challenge to the property takeover.
The fear, coercion, and outright brutality they endured paint a clear picture: this was not law enforcement; it was an organized criminal act executed with the backing of a corrupted system.
The housekeeper’s first-hand experience provides an unfiltered perspective on the events as they unfolded. From the moment law enforcement arrived to the final moments of the operation, their account exposes the realities of what transpired.
The threats, fear, and abuse they endured are critical to understanding the severity of the situation. Their statements serve as a direct, personal testimony to the misconduct and illegality of the operation.
FACT FILE
HOUSEKEEPER'S TESTIMONY
The housekeeper’s firsthand account reveals the harsh reality of the illegal eviction. They describe how law enforcement, acting as accomplices, employed threats, aggression, and coercion to execute a premeditated scheme. Wouter de Swardt issued commands with impunity, while landlords collaborated to ensure the takeover succeeded. Their testimony stands as a powerful indictment of the deep corruption and abuse of power at the heart of this operation.
Media24’s Role in Perpetuating Falsehoods
Media24, through its platforms News24, Netwerk24, and Rapport, played an instrumental role in distorting the truth, fabricating allegations, and legitimizing an unlawful and corrupt operation. Instead of conducting independent investigative journalism, they acted as willing conduits for false information fed to them by Wouter de Swardt, Inge Broad, and Keith Broad.
Their articles did not merely misrepresent facts—they strategically omitted critical details, distorted events, and painted those responsible for serious criminal conduct as victims, while demonizing the actual victim of the unlawful eviction.
The most egregious failure of Media24 was its deliberate exclusion of key facts:
-
No mention was made of the police’s illegal forced entry and their subsequent threats, intimidation, and violence.
-
There was no reporting on the police handing over the property to private individuals without any legal basis.
-
The sheer scale of the operation, including the deployment of a SWAT-style team for a fabricated case, was ignored.
-
The suffering and mistreatment of the dogs were never mentioned.
-
The premeditated nature of the eviction, the advance planning of the renovations, and the involvement of the landlords and new owners were entirely omitted.
Instead, Media24 actively worked to construct a narrative that painted me as a criminal, fabricating allegations of fraud, property damage, and deception without any independent verification.
Their stories consistently cited Wouter de Swardt as an authoritative source, despite overwhelming evidence of his fraudulent and corrupt practices. Articles falsely claimed that the operation was a legitimate law enforcement action and that the property owners were innocent victims, entirely ignoring the corrupt and unlawful nature of the takeover.
Media24’s bias was evident in its refusal to acknowledge or report on legal victories that directly contradicted their false narrative. Court rulings, dismissals of charges, and evidence discrediting the fabricated claims were ignored. Even when presented with factual rebuttals, Media24 refused to update or correct their reports.
This was not mere negligence—this was an orchestrated media campaign designed to reinforce and justify an illegal eviction and wrongful imprisonment. Media24 acted as an extension of the corrupt individuals behind the operation, amplifying their lies and ensuring that public perception was manipulated to serve their interests.
The housekeeper’s testimony and extensive evidence expose the reality that Media24 refused to report: this was not a lawful eviction, not a case of fraud, and not a police investigation—it was a coordinated act of corruption, facilitated by a complicit media.
Their role in this cannot be overstated, and their refusal to retract or correct their falsehoods continues to perpetuate injustice. Media24’s conduct in this matter represents not just journalistic failure but complicity in a criminal conspiracy.
FACT FILE
MEDIA24'S ROLE
Media24, through platforms like News24, Netwerk24, and Rapport, played a pivotal role in legitimizing an unlawful operation by amplifying false narratives provided by Wouter de Swardt, Inge Broad, and Keith Broad. Their reporting omitted critical details, ignored evidence of corruption, and painted the perpetrators as victims while demonizing the actual victim. This was not negligence—it was a deliberate campaign to manipulate public perception and justify an illegal eviction and wrongful imprisonment. The housekeeper’s testimony and extensive evidence expose Media24’s complicity in perpetuating injustice.
EXCERPTS FROM THE AUDIO WITNESS TESTIMONY REGARDS SERG STEVENS OPERATION OF 14 DECEMBER 2022
HIGHLIGHTS FROM HOUSEKEEPER TRANSCRIPT
CLICK IMAGES TO VIEW
HOUSEKEEPER OF LEIRMANS ROAD ON 14 DECEMBER 2022. AUDIO RECORDING: FIRST HAND ACCOUNT OF SERG STEVENS OPERATION
"Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical."
Blaise Pascal