New evidence and explanations came to light during the inquiry of Senior officer Colonel Govender regarding who held ultimate authority during a high-stakes tactical operation at a Morningside flat that resulted in a fatal shootout.

During the questioning, the commission tried to grip who held the responsibility when a multi-agency unit operated during an active crime scene, and whether senior rank automatically dictates operational control.

The Morningside Shootout and the Question of Seniority

The dispute stems from an operation at a residential flat in Morningside, Durban. Following a shootout at the premises, panel members raised serious concerns regarding why Colonel Govender—the most senior police officer present on site—was not directly commanding the tactical intervention.

During cross-examination, panel members pointed out the inherent difficulties in understanding how a senior colonel could be present on scene while junior officers were reportedly leading the operation. Panel members pressed the issue, questioning whether a senior officer would be required to obey operational instructions, such as a directive to retreat or withhold notifications, if given by a lower-ranking officer designated as the operational lead.

Intelligence Ownership vs. Operational Rank

In response to the panel's questioning, Colonel Govender explained the practical distinction within police operations between administrative rank, tactical execution, and intelligence ownership, according to the Colonel:

The unit or officer registering the primary inquiry or docket retains control over that specific information, in that regard as the intelligence regarding the suspects originated from a unit in Pietermaritzburg they had control over the operation.

In the same breath he explain the involviment of the k-9 unit, according to him because the operation involved high-risk entry, Captain Rodriguez of Durban K9—identified as the senior tactical specialist on site—was designated as the operational commander responsible for managing the immediate tactical scene. And his role was only focused on administrative coordination, scene facilitation, and high-level support rather than directing the tactical assault team upstairs, noting he was not equipped for tactical entry at the time.

Colonel Govender maintained that while he accepted overall administrative responsibility as the senior officer present, standard practice allows specialized or intelligence-bearing junior members to lead specific tactical phases without interference from higher-ranking non-tactical personnel.

Handover Protocols and Independent Oversight

The inquiry further examined scene management protocols once a tactical intervention concludes and secondary role-players arrive at the location. And we were blassed with these three key points:

Key Operational Protocols Clarified During Testimony:

• Transfer of Command: According to the Colonel, Once primary tactical objectives are met, control of the overall scene transitions from the tactical lead to local station duty officers, branch commanders, and detective services to manage the perimeter and evidence collection.
  
  
• Notification Procedures: Colonel Govender explained that during any shooting incidents involving police members, standard protocol dictates contacting 10111 Radio Control immediately. Radio Control is tasked with notifying the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) to dispatch investigators to the scene.
  
  
• Member in Attendance: The Morningside scene eventually saw attendance from senior leadership, including the District Duty Officer, DPCI Provincial Commander, the Provincial Commissioner, the National Commissioner of Police, and the Minister of Police.

Furthermore during his testimony, The Colonel explained how the 2016 cash-in-transit operation actually worked and why they had to use their Golf 6 bullet proof vehicle to pursue the robbers.