Businessman Calvin Mojalefa Mandlakapheli Mathibeli, who owns Calvin and Family Security, wants the Tshwane Metro Police Officer General Revo Spies to pay them an estimated R100 million for lying about their security company car being fitted with blue lights.
On 10 November, Spies appeared before the Madlanga Commission, where he made accusations that the car belonging to Calvin and Family Security was stopped on the M12 approximately a few weeks ago, and that the alleged car was fitted with blue lights.
MDN News is in possession of the letter that was sent to retired Judge Mbuyisenli Madlanga, who heads the Madlanga Commission, and Revo Spies respectively.
The Madlanga Commission is investigating the infiltration of drug cartels in the South African Police Services (SAPS), judiciary, intelligence, and related institutions.
According to the letter from the representative Strauss De Waal Attorneys of Calvin and Family Security, the narrative orchestrated by Spies suggests that there is a relationship between their client and the parties mentioned during his testimony regarding illegal use of blue lights.
The representative further alleges that the former Ekurhuleni Municipality employee intentionally misled the Commission on the basis that their client was contracted by Ekurhuleni Municipality from 2020-2023.
“We act on behalf of Calvin and Family Security. We refer to the recent presentation made by Revo Spies before the Madlanga Commission of Enquiry on the 10th November 2025, during which it was alleged that a vehicle belonging to Calvin and Family Security was stopped on the N12 approximately a few weeks ago and that the said vehicle was allegedly fitted with blue lights. Furthermore, the narrative orchestrated by Spies suggests that there is a relationship between our client and the parties mentioned during his testimony regarding illegal use of blue lights, and he intentionally misled the Commission on the basis that our client was contracted by Ekurhuleni Municipality from 2020-2023,” the letter reads.
The letter to Madlanga further states that their client’s instructions are to put on record that Spies’ allegations regarding Calvin and Family Security are false and misleading, as the incident he referred to does not exist, and that is the reason he has failed to prove the same.
“Our client has never met or engaged with the individual Spies referred to during his testimony. The first time our client heard about the said individuals was during the proceedings of the Commission, like the general public. It seems that Spies’ allegations coincide with some suspicious conduct by SAPS against our client. There appears to be a coordinated attempt to defame, destabilize, and sabotage our client’s company and its operations,” the letter reads.
Strauss De Waal said that due to the damning nature of the allegations made by Spies at the Commission of Enquiry, a letter dated 14 November 2025 was directed to Spies on behalf of their client, demanding him to provide proof and clarity on the matter.
“However, to date we have not received the requested information. It is known that the terms of reference for the Madlanga Commission include investigating allegations that organised criminal syndicates have infiltrated or exerted undue influence over key institutions of the criminal justice system, including law enforcement, prosecution, intelligence, judiciary, and corrections, and whether there has been political interference or corruption in investigations, prosecutions, and the administration of justice,” the letter reads.
The letter further said that the purpose of the Commission of Enquiry is to investigate and reveal the truth regarding criminality, political interference, and corruption in the criminal justice system.
“It is with great concern that Spies, as a witness under oath, has provided false and damning information regarding our client and has subsequently failed to prove or substantiate such allegations. The false allegations made by Spies have resulted in our client suffering reputational damage and loss of client trust, which will have negative financial implications. Consequently, our client is exploring its legal recourse regarding Spies’ conduct. We hereby request the commission to investigate the allegations made by Spies, as it is unacceptable for a witness to lie under oath to our client’s detriment and in contravention of the purpose of the commission.”