IDENTICAL CONDUCT: SERGEANT STEVENS & SERGEAN DUNA
⚖️ ILLEGAL ARREST AND UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF DARREN RUSSELL: THE IDENTICAL MISCONDUCT THAT EXPOSES SYSTEM CORRUPTION
Three entirely unrelated criminal charges. A timeline spanning nearly a full year. Four different SAPS units. Multiple magistrates. Several different prosecutors. And two supposedly unconnected, independent investigating officers — Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens — operating from different police departments in separate jurisdictions.
And yet, all of it followed one identical pattern of extreme behaviour and highly irregular misconduct: fabricated evidence, complete absence of legitimate investigative contributions, arrests executed without warrants, systemic breaches of due process, unlawful detentions, and deliberate interference with bail applications — not once, but repeatedly.
Across these cases, over seventy distinct procedural violations and irregularities were committed — each one on its own serious, many outright unlawful. But taken together, they form a pattern of conduct that is not just rare — it is statistically implausible to the point of impossibility.
This exact same sequence of misconduct was not isolated to a single officer. It was replicated — step by step — by both investigators. The one factor they did share? Their common allegiance to Mr. Wouter de Swardt, whose role as the invisible coordinator of all three charges becomes inescapably clear. These officers were not acting independently. They were operating as proxies — furthering the private agenda of de Swardt and the Consortium of landlords seeking to manipulate the criminal justice system for personal gain.
This was not incompetence. And it certainly wasn’t coincidence. This was systemic corruption — executed with absolute precision, at the expense of justice.
Two Unrelated Criminal Charges — One Coordinated Campaign Against Darren Russell
Completely contrary to the false claims published by Media24 in their defamation campaign, the two arrests executed against Darren Russell were based on entirely unrelated charges and were handled by separate units, different police officers, and unconnected complainants — yet bore identical hallmarks of corruption.
-
One charge involved allegations of breaking and entering with the theft of three televisions.
-
The other charge was rooted in alleged fraud.
-
They were handled by different SAPS stations: Bellville Commercial Crime and Hout Bay.
-
Investigated by two different police officers: Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens.
-
The complaints were supposedly lodged by unrelated parties.
-
And the two arrests occurred nearly six months apart.
Despite these surface differences, the second arrest was a procedural carbon copy of the first. Nearly every element — the actions taken, documents filed, contributors cited, affidavits submitted, courtroom strategies deployed, and even the post-arrest interference — were nearly identical to what had occurred in the first matter.
The only factor common to both criminal charges was the behind-the-scenes involvement of Wouter de Swardt and his clients — all landlords with vested interests in reclaiming contested properties held by Darren Russell. Both police officers — Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens — acted with unwavering alignment to de Swardt’s agenda. Their methods, documents, and unlawful tactics were not just similar; they were indistinguishably replicated.
Darren Russell had foreseen this sequence. From the moment he was granted bail in August 2023, he warned his legal team that the criminal charges were not the end — they were only the beginning of a protracted and coordinated effort to seize his properties through abuse of the criminal justice system. In December 2023, following a successful court ruling that pushed the matter back to April 2024, Russell informed his attorney, Louis Herbert, that Keith Broad — one of the landlords involved — would likely initiate a renewed campaign. His prediction proved accurate. The same actors returned with a new charge, following the same illegal tactics.
Despite their technical distinctions, the motivations, misconduct, and structural irregularities behind both arrests were identical. The evidence proves beyond doubt: this was not coincidence — it was orchestration.
🔁 A Repeated Pattern of Corrupt Conduct by Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens
The synchronized misconduct executed by Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens exposes a deliberate, premeditated strategy — one designed not to pursue justice, but to entrap Darren Russell and obstruct lawful process. Both arrests were grounded in fabricated charges, riddled with procedural violations, and utterly devoid of any legitimate investigative effort.
This was not the work of two rogue officers making independent missteps. The identical nature of their conduct across dozens of key procedural moments — despite operating in different SAPS units, in separate cases, at different times — reveals a coordinated enforcement mechanism serving Wouter de Swardt and the landlord Consortium.
This pattern of behaviour included:
-
The deliberate fabrication of evidence
-
The coercion or manipulation of witnesses
-
The ongoing disregard of existing court orders
-
The inflation of monetary claims for greater legal leverage
-
The calculated manipulation of bail objections
-
And a complete failure to conduct lawful, objective investigative work
In both cases, the arrest itself was the outcome — no meaningful investigation took place before or after. The goal was clear: neutralize Darren Russell legally, destabilize him financially, and disrupt his ability to continue exposing misconduct. The entire process was driven not by SAPS protocol, but by the private influence of Wouter de Swardt, whose role in orchestrating these charges is documented in full on this dedicated analysis page.
Every charge brought against Darren Russell was thrown out. Both magistrates condemned the arrests as unlawful and politically motivated.
SAPS CORRUPTION IDENTICAL CONDUCT
Sergeants Duna & Stevens: 69 of 71 Criminal Acts Were Identical
Same Playbook, Different Charges, Two Officers, Four Months Apart
The table proves systemic and deliberate misconduct. In 69 of 71 actions, both officers acted identically — often illegally — despite the arrests occurring four months apart, operating in different stations, investigating unrelated charges.
Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens followed the exact same unlawful playbook.
The table details 71 identical actions — from fabricated evidence and bail objections, to refusal to investigate and media manipulation — all serving the same private interests.
This repeated pattern of corruption could not occur by chance. The mathematical probability of this happening naturally is less than 1 in 1.3 undecillion.
The only plausible explanation is coordinated criminality.
The only two differences were themselves criminal: (1) My phone was illegally pinged in August but not in December — because by then, they already knew where I was. (2) The December arrest had a fabricated “docket” shown to the defence; in August, no docket existed at all.
Deliberate And Calculated
The deliberate and calculated nature of the mirrored misconduct by Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens exposes a level of corruption that cannot be dismissed as coincidence or incompetence. This was not the result of bureaucratic failure or isolated misjudgment — it was a systemic abuse of state power by sworn SAPS officers who willingly violated legal and ethical standards to further private vendettas.
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens did not act independently. Their actions — identical in sequence, method, and objective — were the product of a joint strategy orchestrated from outside SAPS itself. Both operated in concert, driven by a shared agenda and under the external influence of Wouter de Swardt and the landlord group known as the Consortium.
The analysis that follows lays out the repeated and identical misconduct committed by both officers. It demonstrates how each one systematically abandoned investigative impartiality, procedural law, and SAPS protocol. This conduct is not merely reflective of individual corruption — it constitutes direct evidence of a coordinated conspiracy to misuse law enforcement for the unlawful enrichment of private actors.
Three Unrelated Charges – The Exact Same Playbook
By any legal, procedural, or rational measure, the three criminal matters brought against Darren Russell had no legitimate connection. The charges were entirely different in nature — one involving an alleged burglary and theft of televisions, another built on a fabricated fraud claim, and the third based on bogus immigration allegations. Each was filed months apart, handled by separate police units, investigated by different SAPS officers, and allegedly instigated by unrelated complainants.
Yet, despite those distinctions, every aspect of the arrests — their orchestration, manipulation, and courtroom execution — followed one identical playbook. The same sequence of procedural violations, the same perversion of justice, and the same goal-driven manipulation occurred each and every time.
Behind the scenes, a consistent corrupt network was in motion: SAPS officers, compromised legal representatives, and private individuals collaborated to manufacture charges, fabricate evidence, suppress exculpatory material, manipulate bail proceedings, and ensure that Darren Russell remained legally entrapped. This was not law enforcement — it was a coordinated campaign to exploit the justice system for private retaliation.
At the center of every charge was Wouter de Swardt, acting in tandem with his clients and the landlord Consortium. The same individuals who positioned themselves as civil complainants in tenancy matters were simultaneously the driving force behind the criminal cases. The repetition of their strategy — regardless of legal merit — is indisputable.
Each time the charges collapsed under legal scrutiny or Darren Russell secured bail, a new fabricated charge was introduced. When the initial fraud charge disintegrated in court, the baseless immigration charge was filed — not due to evidence or public interest, but to delay Russell’s freedom and exhaust his legal and financial resources. This was not an investigation. It was a strategy designed to break him.
Targeting Darren Russell for private gain - No credible evidence was ever produced. Two SAPS officers followed an identical pattern of corruption
SAPS CORRUPTION IDENTICAL CONDUCT
SAPS Officers Duna and Stevens Reproduce Identical Misconduct in Separate Arrest Campaigns
Comparative Analysis Table of SAPS Conduct Across Three Fabricated Charges
Despite operating in different stations, investigating unrelated charges, and working months apart, Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens followed the exact same unlawful playbook.
The table details 60+ identical actions — from fabricated evidence and bail objections, to refusal to investigate and media manipulation — all serving the same private interests.
This repeated pattern of corruption could not occur by chance. The mathematical probability of this happening naturally is less than 1 in 1.3 undecillion.
The only plausible explanation is coordinated criminality.
A Systematic Pattern of Abuse
On paper, there were no legal, procedural, or evidentiary links between these criminal charges. In reality, they were mirror images — identical tactics, identical corruption, and identical coordination. The machinery behind them operated with military discipline and no regard for legality.
-
The same SAPS officers systematically abused their positions of power — Sergeant Duna engineered the first charge, and Sergeant Stevens replicated the same conduct in the following two.
-
The same private actors — spearheaded by Wouter de Swardt — dictated the direction and content of each case. Wouter de Swardt functioned as the de facto architect of the charges.
-
The same fraudulent evidence, false affidavits, and acts of perjury were used to secure unlawful detentions and obstruct due process.
-
The same refusal to interview Darren Russell, gather objective evidence, or investigate alternative leads occurred in all three cases. The charge itself was presented as the investigation.
-
The same media manipulation was deployed: fabricated news reports served to entrench a false narrative in the public domain, while factual developments that disproved the claims were omitted or buried.
-
The same pattern of illegal seizures occurred — from the unlawful confiscation of Darren Russell’s digital equipment to the strategic withholding of his passport — actions clearly designed to undermine his legal capacity, movement, and public defense.
This was not a coincidence. It was not administrative failure. It was deliberate, calculated, and criminal.
Corruption Repeated Is Not Coincidence
If a single SAPS officer makes a serious procedural error, it may be attributed to incompetence. If two officers, separated by time and unit, commit the exact same errors under nearly identical circumstances, suspicion is not only warranted — it's necessary. But when three entirely unrelated criminal cases unfold with the same timeline, tactics, and outcomes — involving the same private actors, the same SAPS misconduct, and the same post-arrest sabotage — the conclusion becomes unavoidable:
It is not coincidence. It is corruption.
At no point in any of the three criminal matters brought against Darren Russell did the investigating officers act independently or impartially. Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens operated in concert — knowingly, deliberately, and consistently — to achieve a pre-engineered outcome: the prolonged legal entrapment of Darren Russell and the unlawful seizure and destabilization of his assets.
Every single charge was built on falsified testimony, procedural violations, and manipulated documents. Every arrest followed the same unlawful strategy: press forward with fabricated cases, obstruct due process, manipulate the bail system, and retreat only when the fraud was legally exposed — only to introduce a new charge and continue the cycle.
This wasn’t accidental. This was tactical.
The criminal justice system — including SAPS officers, prosecutorial actors, and affiliated legal figures — was weaponized repeatedly against Darren Russell. There was no oversight. There was no accountability. And there were no consequences for those orchestrating the cycle of abuse.
This was never about enforcing the law. This was always about abusing the law — to serve private, unlawful interests.
The Impossibility of Coincidence: Probability As Proof
To illustrate the statistical impossibility of this misconduct occurring by chance, the following conservative calculations apply: Even using a generous assumption that any single procedural irregularity has a 1 in 2 chance (50%) of occurring accidentally, the odds that 60 identical procedural failings happened independently in just two cases is:
P = (1/2)⁶⁰ = 1 in 1,152,921,504,606,846,976
(1 in 1.15 quintillion)
Apply that to three cases, each reflecting the same 60+ identical errors:
P = (1/2)¹²⁰ = 1 in 1.3 × 10³⁶
(1 in 1.3 undecillion)
To contextualize that figure: the estimated number of atoms in the known universe is roughly 10⁸⁰ — the probability of this being chance is vastly smaller than that number.
Even if we allow for a looser assumption — that each irregularity has a 1 in 5 chance (20%) of occurring naturally:
• For two cases:
P = (1/5)⁶⁰ = 1 in 8.67 × 10⁴¹
• For three cases:
P = (1/5)¹²⁰ = 1 in 7.52 × 10⁸³
These numbers do not reflect a statistical anomaly. They reflect a near impossibility that confirms what the record already makes clear.
Corruption Is the Only Explanation
These calculations are not theoretical — they are mathematical proof that the misconduct in Darren Russell’s cases could not possibly have occurred organically, through accident or oversight.
In fact, the odds of a private citizen winning the national lottery ten times in a row are higher than the odds that these events unfolded naturally.
This was not administrative failure. This was not human error. This was not procedural fragility. This was a systemic, deliberate, and coordinated abuse of South Africa’s criminal justice process.
It was corruption, not coincidence. It was orchestrated criminality, not incompetence.
And it was carried out by SAPS officers — including Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens — in collaboration with private individuals, most prominently Wouter de Swardt, with one unlawful objective: to entrap, silence, and financially dismantle Darren Russell.
-
The scale of the deception.
-
The repetition of the same tactics.
-
The perfect synchronization of fabricated arrests and falsified charges.
All demand one thing: Exposure. Accountability. Justice. This was not a case of flawed investigation. It was a case of law enforcement weaponized to serve private vendettas. And every individual responsible must be brought to account.
The Magistrates’ Condemnation of SAPS Misconduct in the Darren Russell Arrests
The unequivocal condemnation issued by two independent South African magistrates — each presiding over separate cases and entirely unaware of the other's findings — demonstrates the extraordinary severity of misconduct in the criminal matters pursued against Darren Russell. In both instances, the magistrates issued scathing judicial assessments, expressing deep concern over the lack of evidence, the opaque motives behind the arrests, and the manipulation of the criminal justice system to serve private interests.
In the first criminal matter, the magistrate granted bail and delivered a withering rebuke of the prosecution, the Investigating Officer, and the visible external forces guiding the proceedings. During his closing remarks, the magistrate physically drew large question marks in the air, gesturing at the implausibility of the case and his disbelief that it had reached the courtroom at all. He described the case as lacking both evidentiary merit and prosecutorial integrity, stating clearly that it was being driven by ulterior motives.
The magistrate condemned:
-
The prosecution’s insistence on objecting to bail despite no credible basis
-
The role of the Investigating Officer — Sergeant Duna — whose testimony he found to be dishonest and unconvincing
-
And most notably, the overt influence of Wouter de Swardt, stating in open court that this was “not Mr. de Swardt’s courtroom”, in reference to de Swardt’s persistent and improper interference in the judicial process.
He further denounced Wouter de Swardt’s repeated presence and inappropriate control over the bail proceedings, describing it as unacceptable and improper conduct that undermined judicial independence.
Both Magistrates In The Malicious Prosecutions Of Darren Russell Called For Investigations Into the Illegal Arrest and Unlawful Detention
A Second Magistrate, A Second Call for Criminal Investigation
In an entirely separate case, and without knowledge of the prior ruling, a second magistrate presiding over Darren Russell’s second arrest issued an equally damning and independent condemnation. The consistency of their findings — across separate cases, separate dates, and separate officers — obliterates any notion that these incidents stemmed from procedural flaws or personal judicial bias. Instead, it exposes a systemic pattern of criminal abuse.
This second magistrate was openly critical of:
-
The conduct of Sergeant Stevens, whose testimony was described as misleading, dishonest, and entirely unreliable
-
The prosecution's refusal to acknowledge the complete absence of credible evidence
-
The overt, behind-the-scenes direction of the case by Wouter de Swardt, who was once again identified as exercising undue and improper influence over a public criminal proceeding
Most significantly, the magistrate called for an official investigation into the conduct of the SAPS officers and external parties involved — a judicial measure that is exceedingly rare, and yet had now been triggered twice in separate courtrooms, by unrelated magistrates, in response to the treatment of Darren Russell.
Like his predecessor, the second magistrate recognized that the arrests were not anchored in evidence or public interest — but in the strategic targeting of Darren Russell, orchestrated by Wouter de Swardt and his affiliates.
The Officers Were Not Acting Alone
The independent yet identical judicial condemnations issued by two magistrates confirm what was evident from the outset: the criminal proceedings against Darren Russell were not the result of genuine SAPS investigations but rather calculated attacks orchestrated by private individuals who exerted undue influence over compromised law enforcement officials.
Sergeant Stevens picked up precisely where Sergeant Duna left off. This was not a metaphorical handover — it was literal and operational. Every tactic, every procedural violation, every act of misconduct executed by Sergeant Duna was mirrored and re-deployed by Sergeant Stevens. The clearest illustration of this baton-passing was the deliberate transfer of Darren Russell’s passport between the two officers — not to advance a legal process, but to prolong the unlawful manipulation of his immigration status and obstruct his defense.
This was no coincidence. It was an orchestrated campaign — built to entrap, destabilize, and neutralize Darren Russell through overlapping waves of criminal complaints, all coordinated behind the scenes. Two separate courts, under two separate magistrates, exposed the same pattern: corruption, abuse of power, and blatant disregard for the law.
That both magistrates — without knowledge of each other’s rulings — called for formal investigations highlights the magnitude of misconduct. These were not isolated lapses or questionable arrest tactics. This was a coordinated, unlawful abuse of state power carried out for private gain — so egregious that independent judicial officers saw no option but to demand inquiries from the bench.
A Systemic Problem, A Deliberate Conspiracy
The facts leave no room for doubt: Sergeant Duna and Sergeant Stevens did not act alone or independently. Their unwavering deference to Wouter de Swardt, their shared willingness to falsify records and obstruct legal rights, and their contempt for due process all point to an organized conspiracy.
Their behaviour was not the result of incompetence — it was the result of influence, motivation, and control. Whether incentivized through bribes, promises of advancement, or other benefits, both officers abandoned their roles as public servants. They instead operated as private enforcers for Wouter de Swardt and the landlord Consortium.
Their testimonies were scripted. Their procedural steps were rehearsed. Their misconduct was methodically repeated. And their objective was singular: the legal, financial, and reputational destruction of Darren Russell.
-
The magistrates recognized it.
-
The courts named it.
-
The investigations must now confront it.
"Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today." - Mahatma Gandhi