A Chatsworth mother's quest for justice in 'drunk driving' case

TEN weeks have passed since my only daughter Khitana was killed by a drunk driver; her life taken in an act of reckless disregard. I write this out of duty, as a mother to expose the obstruction of justice that followed her death. The people of Chatsworth deserve transparency, and my daughter deserves justice untainted by negligence or corruption.

When my husband and I arrived at the scene, my 21-year-old daughter lay lifeless on the roadway curb, unattended. Despite their presence, SAPS officers ignored her entirely.

Their focus was fixed instead on a visibly intoxicated driver who had just caused her death. My instinct told me something was not right that night. The officers’ behaviour was not what one would ordinarily expect; it left me uneasy and questioning. Their conduct compelled me to find out more and to understand what had really happened at the crime scene. Little did I realise how much would unfold from that decision.

The National Road Traffic Act mandates that blood alcohol testing be conducted within two hours of an incident. In a fatal collision, this requirement is not optional. It is the foundation of evidence. No breathalyser was administered, no immediate blood collection, and no collision unit was summoned. Critical evidence was simply disregarded. Subsequently I learned via official correspondence that blood samples were collected only after the crime scene was fully cleared. Having been on site for four hours while the wreckage remained, it is evident that the collection occurred at least seven to eight hours after the collision.

Professional paramedics confirmed via report that he was severely intoxicated, stating he was “visibly under mind-altering substances”. He requested an intravenous dextrose drip, a substance known to interfere with blood alcohol testing. The paramedic refused, recognising that such treatment would compromise forensic evidence.

This request, whether made by the driver himself or suggested by an officer familiar with evidence manipulation, reflects disturbing procedural corruption.

The driver of the vehicle, which killed my daughter contacted a panel shop he knew, arranging a tow truck for removal. When members of a SAPS task team arrived later and observed this irregularity, they attempted to intervene. A dispute arose between officers regarding scene procedures. I later learned that the constable in charge had “ownership” of the scene, a designation that restricts interference from other officers, even those of higher rank.

When I encountered the driver almost four hours later, he still reeked of liquor and stood in casual conversation with the same officers tasked with arresting him. His confidence reflected a belief that he was immune from consequence.

I asked him directly to identify him as the person who had killed my child. SAPS officers intervened immediately. Not to arrest him, but to silence me.

They instructed me to “go away” and allow them to “follow procedure,” claiming “we have no witnesses to what happened.”

Their so-called “procedure” involved excessively delayed alcohol testing, no collision analysis, no preservation of evidence, and even granting authority to immediately remove the bakkie to a panel shop, all while shouting at the victim’s family.

A towing operator confirmed that he saw SAPS acknowledge the driver’s strong smell of alcohol. He also recalled a SAPS officer shouting at me while I remained quiet, simply lowering my head and walking away. These consistent accounts from myself and other responders show that the police response was neither neutral nor lawful.

The official accident report was riddled with omissions. Three vehicles were involved; only two were recorded.

The bakkie that killed my daughter was the murder weapon and was excluded entirely. Such omissions are not clerical errors. They constitute falsification and obstruction of justice.

It was several days after the incident when the initial investigating officer admitted she had yet to “ask him what he was driving that night.” She had no timeline for when the driver's blood was taken, as this information was absent. She could also not speak with a key witness who witnessed the fatal collision as he was chased from the scene. This witness was later located independently.

SAPS Chatsworth inquired whether my daughter “was coming from a party” and requested the tracker report of her vehicle. Did they extend this scrutiny to the intoxicated driver? Did they question whether he was returning from a party from which he was driving at speeds sufficient to cause catastrophic polytrauma injuries?

However, their focus was nowhere near the documentation of the murder weapon itself. While the SAPS questioned my daughter's whereabouts, private tracers located the bakkie that same morning at a panel shop, already being prepared for strip and repair. I possess footage of this evidence destruction. SAPS took no photographs or captured any forensic evidence of the crime scene whatsoever.

To describe this as “culpable homicide” implies accident, a lack of intent. But the facts show deliberate choices: he drank to visible intoxication, chose to drive, travelled at unlawful speed, struck a pedestrian, attempted to flee by trying to run over an injured witness, ordered evidence removal, and requested medication to distort blood alcohol results.

The internal SAPS finding on the formal complaint I lodged described the officers’ conduct as “unbecoming” and “founded,” warranting only a warning. I rejected this outcome. It represents systemic failure and institutionalised obstruction. My qualifications and training in legal studies and criminal justice allow me to recognise criminal conduct, and that night, SAPS Chatsworth acted not as guardians of the Constitution but as protectors of a perpetrator.

After notifying SAPS Chatsworth that I would escalate the matter to Ipid, the Provincial Commissioner, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for SAPS, and the media, I was met with silence. I then proceeded to Ipid and KZN Police Commissioner Mkhwanazi, requesting the docket be removed from Chatsworth SAPS and assigned to a new district and investigating officer.

Both Ipid and General Mkhwanazi's office responded immediately and decisively to the documented obstruction of justice. I now expect the provincial oversight structure and Ipid to fulfil their constitutional mandate with transparency and integrity, as the law demands.

The questions remain. Why was a visibly intoxicated driver not arrested at the scene? Why were statutory testing requirements ignored? Why was evidence destroyed or omitted? Why were witnesses chased away and key statements excluded from the docket? Why was the murder weapon left undocumented? Why did accountability have to depend on a grieving mother rather than the officers mandated to uphold justice? How many other families have faced the same betrayal, forced to investigate their own children’s deaths because the system they trusted refused to act?

My daughter was my Jhaansi ki Rani, my warrior princess, who aspired to serve the same justice system that has failed her. I have lost my only daughter. I have no formal witness protection and I face a process riddled with signs of corruption and collusion, yet I will not be intimidated or silent. I will pursue every lawful avenue to secure transparency and accountability through IPID, the provincial command, parliamentary oversight, and the courts. I am not afraid to speak the truth, nor to hold state actors to account.

I encourage the media to request comments from SAPS Chatsworth. In a democracy, even those who fail their constitutional duties have the right to defend their conduct. This is not a criticism of the entire SAPS Chatsworth, but of the individuals within the service who have betrayed their oath and the trust placed in them by the community. Justice delayed is justice denied. Justice corrupted is democracy destroyed.

I have since learned that a second version of the official accident report was created by Chatsworth SAPS to include the bakkie involved in the collision.

The original report stamped August 18, made no mention of this vehicle. The newly produced “Form 2 of 2” bears a commission date of August 18, yet carries an official SAPS station stamp dated August 25. This is the day after I formally lodged my complaint.

This discovery raises serious concerns about the handling and integrity of the evidence.

How is it even possible that a second report was created a week later to include the very vehicle involved, and only after I questioned the procedure? This is not an oversight; it appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth. The question remains: why would officers mandated to uphold the law take steps that so clearly betray it?

Deonarain is the mother of Khitana and a PhD graduate in Law with specialisation in criminal justice. This article represents her firsthand observations along with testimonies provided by key responders at the crime scene, all documented in formal reports to Ipid and the office of the KZN Police Commissioner.