The family of slain security guard Thembinkosi Ntuli has accused his employer, Adams Close Security and Protection Services, of attempting to evade responsibility for his death after the company disputed that he was on duty when he was killed while protecting taxi boss Victor Molefe Moekeletsi.
Moekeletsi, the chairperson of the Alexandra, Randburg, Midrand and Sandton Taxi Association, was the target of the shooting in which both he and his bodyguard, Ntuli, were killed on October 30.
The company claimed in a letter to Ntuli’s brother, Lindo Ntuli, that Thembinkosi was not on duty at the time of the incident.
Lindo said the family buried Thembinkosi on the weekend of November 8-9. They asked the company last week to confirm whether his death had been reported to the department of employment and labour (Compensation Fund) in line with the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (Coida), and whether the prescribed W.Cl.2 form had been submitted within the required seven-day period.
He also asked the company to confirm whether notification had been made to the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (Psira), as required when a registered security officer dies in the line of duty.
In response, the company stated that Thembinkosi was supposed to be on approved annual leave when the incident occurred.
“He returned on his own without being called to work or notifying his manager, and without obtaining approval to come to work. Our records also show that he did not sign the register to report for duty,” the company said in its response.
The company further informed the family that the deceased was not a member of a pension fund.
On whether Thembinkosi was registered with the Security Sector Provident Fund or any other pension or provident fund, the company replied that Adams Close Security and Protection Services did not offer group life cover to its employees as it was not a legal requirement.
Lindo, however, accused the company of trying to evade liability, saying the investigating officer found his brother wearing his full uniform at the scene.
“He died inside the company vehicle and was carrying a company-issued firearm — which he could not have accessed unless he had reported for duty that morning and the safe had been opened for him,” Lindo said.
He added that the family had lodged complaints with both the Compensation Fund and Psira.
He was a kind man who loved his family deeply. It’s no surprise he supported everyone. He was a happy, warm person who loved people. It devastates us that despite his dedication — shown by how he died on duty — the company he served is now dishonouring him and mistreating his family. It adds to our pain.
— Thembinkosi Ntuli’s brother, Lindo Ntuli
“They suspect the company is not compliant and will be investigated by the Compensation Fund, while Psira will conduct its own investigation.
“We have also complained to the South African Human Rights Commission. It is important that this matter be thoroughly investigated and justice be served,” he said.
Lindo alleged that the company was attempting to create a false narrative.
“The incident happened on October 30 at around 9am. The family only found out at 9pm. The company didn’t call us — our assumption is that they were trying to create the story they are now pushing.”
He explained that his brother had recently been on leave and had just returned to work on the day of the incident.
“He got into his uniform, went to the company office to collect his firearm — which he had to sign out — got into the company vehicle, and went to collect the principal [Moekeletsi] to escort him. While escorting the taxi boss, it is alleged that a white BMW X5 approached and started shooting at them. Some of his colleagues were injured at the scene — all of them were in uniform.”
Lindo said the company representative confirmed to the family that the incident occurred after Thembinkosi had returned from leave.
The deceased, aged 43, was originally from Utrecht, KwaZulu-Natal, but lived in Freedom Park, Soweto.
“My brother leaves behind his partner and six-year-old daughter, both of whom depended on him for support. He was also the main provider for our parents, our father is 68, our mother is 61. He also leaves behind his three brothers and one sister.
“He was a kind man who loved his family deeply. It’s no surprise he supported everyone. He was a happy, warm person who loved people. It devastates us that despite his dedication — shown by how he died on duty — the company he served is now dishonouring him and mistreating his family. It adds to our pain.”
Lindo emphasised that the family had no reason to lie about his duty status.
“If he wasn’t on duty — if he wasn’t in uniform or using company property — we wouldn’t hold the company liable. But we know he was on duty. He died carrying a company firearm, in a company vehicle, wearing his uniform.”
He further accused the company of failing to comply with legal reporting obligations.
“Under Coida and Psira regulations, an employer must report the death of an employee on duty within seven days. When we asked about this before the seven days expired, the company told us, ‘Everything will be seen after the burial.’
“Not only have they still not reported the incident, but they’re also acting as if they don’t want to take responsibility.”
Lindo said the family was concerned that the company was denying his brother was on duty and was not assisting further with its statutory duties.
“They are legally bound to report any incident where an employee is injured or dies in the course of employment. It’s regrettable how these companies treat the lives of the men — and women — who dedicate their service, only to be ridiculed and dishonoured after death.”
In response to inquiries, the company’s supervisor Sibusiso Mokoena said: “According to my knowledge he had requested leave to attend a criminal case that was ongoing, he was approved leave till October 31 2025, scheduled to return to work on the 3rd of November 2025. Our register also indicates that he did not sign in for work on the day of the fatal accident.
However, Ntuli was not satisfied with the company’s explanation.
“The suggestion that he ‘returned to work on his own’ or was ‘on leave’ contradicts the publicly available information and what was communicated to us directly after the incident,” Ntuli said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.