Rehab centre under fire for forced admissions

Controversial substance abuse rehabilitation centre Tetelestai Recovery Centre has come under scrutiny again when The Citizen’s ongoing investigation revealed several involuntary admissions to the centre may have occurred under questionable circumstances.

The Citizen has interviewed several former patients who were either “uplifted” by teams from the centre, or did the uplifting of other addicts without, it is alleged, any substantiating paperwork.

Visit asg-reflektory.pl for more information.

The investigation also revealed that the controversial KwaZulu-Natal drug rehabilitation facility was operating without the required registration for at least four to five years.

Controversial KZN rehab centre operating without registration

The facility is alleged to have been active from approximately 2019 through to 2025, at various properties.

During that time, large numbers of substance abuse patients were involuntarily admitted through what they believed to be lawful Section 33 processes: when a court decides you may pose a risk of harming yourself or others and admits you to a facility.

According to the department of social development, the centre only received temporary registration in March 2025.

ALSO READ: ‘Rehab from hell’ shut down after patient deaths

That registration was revoked in October the same year and the facility was subsequently shut down. The department confirmed that since about 2020 the centre had been operating illegally.

Tetelestai first came under scrutiny following the death of in-patient Luke Edwards last year. He was allegedly beaten by fellow residents after attempting to escape.

The murder case remains under investigation, with the accused expected back in court later this month.

Murder case investigation

When initially approached for comment in June last year, attorney Wesley Rogers, who represents founder and manager Donovan de Klerk, furnished what appeared to be registration documentation.

Closer inspection revealed the document to be a municipal certificate of occupation rather than a registration certificate.

The department confirmed in writing it is the authority responsible for approving and regulating rehabilitation centres and that a person may not manage or operate such a facility without registration.

ALSO READ: Rehab or cult? TRC ex-patients look towards collective civil, criminal case

A screen grab in which prosecutor Gayle Greyling tells an addict’s family how can she fix them up with a sectioning.

It further confirmed that Section 33 placements apply only to registered centres.

Former patients interviewed said they were subjected to detox and rehabilitation programmes without on-site medical supervision.

Some described being assigned duties, including monitoring fellow patients, kitchen responsibilities and even dispensing scheduled medication.

Detox supervision conducted by fellow recovering addicts

They alleged detox supervision was conducted by fellow recovering addicts designated as “monitors”, alongside De Klerk.

Section 33 of the Prevention of and Treatment for Substance Abuse Act 70 of 2008 requires a formal statutory inquiry before a magistrate and a mandatory assessment by a social worker.

According to the Act, involuntary admission is authorised only to a lawful treatment centre.

ALSO READ: Rehab centre horror: Owner allegedly seen dumping dead baby in a plastic bag

Yet several former patients said they never appeared before a magistrate, never underwent a formal social worker assessment and were never shown a valid court order, despite believing they were lawfully detained.

Rogers and National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesperson Natasha Rabrikson referenced a 1994 case referred to as “Milne 1994”, stating it was not irregular to commit a service user involuntarily to a treatment centre that was not yet registered.

However, Section 19(1) of the 2008 Act criminalises the operation of an unregistered treatment centre, and Section 33 authorises involuntary admission only to a lawful facility.

‘Yet’ in Milne ruling opaque

A criminal defence attorney said the word “yet” in the Milne ruling was opaque and the statute’s explicit requirements may override reliance on older case law.

“Milne does not override explicit statutory requirements. If the Act requires placement only in a registered facility, sending someone to an unregistered one may fall outside the law,” the attorney said.

The name of a prosecutor, Gayle Greyling, appears repeatedly in patient accounts.

ALSO READ: Tetelestai Recovery Centre founder denies abuse claims

The TV room at Tetelestai, left behind when vacated in December last year. Pictures: Hein Kaiser

Greyling, who previously copresented a television panel with De Klerk on sectioning and rehabilitation, was named by several former patients who claimed they met her or were told their matters involved her.

The Citizen has seen WhatsApp messages between Greyling and a family member of an addict in which Tetelestai is described as “the NPA’s usual rehab”.

She appeared to promise a summons for a Section 33 application by the following morning and recommended Tetelestai attorney Rogers as a legal resource.

‘It’s a business’ – Rogers

The Citizen has also seen invoices from Tetelestai to families of patients where the facility charged for sectioning patients. Rogers told The Citizen “it’s a business”.

Rabrikson said the NPA usually presents families with a list of rehabilitation facilities to choose from, that summonses are not generated via WhatsApp and that it is not general practice for prosecutors to recommend private attorneys.

Rogers denied any conflict of interest. “I was instructed for De Klerk after the death of Edwards. I did not bring Section 33 applications for the centre. Only the NPA is authorised to bring Section 33 applications.”

ALSO READ: ‘All in the name of God’: Murder and abuse allegations rock KZN rehab centre [VIDEO]

Yet one former patient alleged Rogers was present in Greyling’s office when she was taken to the prosecutor after what she described as an abduction. Rogers denied this and said he did not recall the individual.

Rogers named a magistrate, “Khumalo”, at the Durban Magistrate’s Court as the presiding officer who signed off several Section 33 orders.

When approached at the court, Khumalo said he did not recall signing off on Section 33 orders linked to Tetelestai and advised that records be requested through the court’s records department.

No documentation provided

Three weeks after a formal request, no documentation had been provided.

A source close to the police investigation into Edwards’ death alleged the court records could not be located because they do not exist. That claim could not be independently verified.

However, tallying senior patients interviewed by The Citizen’s uplift count, it equated to over 40 involuntary admissions.

ALSO READ: Girl defies odds after tragic accident

By the time of publication, the court had still not provided the Section 33 records or the number of people involuntarily sent to Tetelestai.

Read at source