Shadrack Sibiya accuses Madlanga commission task team of abuse of power in bail appeal

Share current article via EmailShare current article via FacebookShare current article via TwitterShare current article via LinkedInMduduzi NonyaneOpens in new windowOpens in new windowEnter fullscreen mode displaying this image.ExpandIn his bail appeal, Shadrack Sibiya challenges the legality of his arrest, searches and detention, alleging that investigators pursued a prosecutorially driven operation against him. Picture: Thapelo Morebudi Story audio is generated using AI

Former deputy national police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya has accused investigators attached to the Madlanga commission’s referral task team of abusing their powers, conducting unlawful searches, manipulating criminal proceedings and orchestrating what he describes as a prosecutorially driven operation against him.

In an appeal against the refusal of his bail, Sibiya lays out a series of allegations about the conduct of the team responsible for investigating criminal complaints arising from evidence before the Madlanga commission, arguing that its actions were characterised by procedural irregularities, abuse of authority and attempts to undermine his defence.

TimesLIVE has seen Sibiya’s notice of appeal, filed at the Johannesburg high court on November 5, which challenges the Randburg magistrate’s court’s October 20 decision to deny him bail.

But beyond seeking his release, the notice offers a detailed account of what Sibiya believes was an investigation tainted by unlawful conduct, raising questions about the methods used by the referral task team and the circumstances surrounding his arrest and detention.

Sibiya was arrested on September 21 following allegations that he raped an 18-year-old woman at the Sandton nightclub, The Grand, in May after she had allegedly consumed alcohol and lost consciousness. Sibiya has denied rape, maintaining that their sexual encounter was consensual.

He is also accused of sexually grooming a 16-year-old girl through electronic communications between July and August 2026, as well as human trafficking involving three individuals.

The arrest of the appellant was a prosecutorially driven operation during which the respondent acted ultra vires in a manner that does not emanate from the Madlanga commission

The state opposed his release on bail, arguing that the seriousness of the charges and the risks of witness intimidation, interference with evidence and evading trial warranted his continued detention. The prosecution also relied on allegations that Sibiya had threatened the complainant’s father.

On October 20, Randburg magistrate Hleziphi Mkhasibe refused bail, finding that Sibiya had failed to establish the exceptional circumstances required for release under Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court was also concerned about the potential risks associated with his release, including possible interference with witnesses and evidence. He has remained in custody since his arrest.

His lawyers argue that the magistrate failed to properly consider allegations of investigative misconduct when determining whether he should remain behind bars.

The defence specifically takes issue with the execution of an arrest warrant, alleging that investigators orchestrated an arrest at premises different from the address specified in the warrant.

The notice states: “The arrest of the appellant was a prosecutorially driven operation during which the respondent acted ultra vires in a manner that does not emanate from the Madlanga commission.”

Sibiya further alleges that investigators obtained an additional search and seizure warrant covering unrelated offences which had no bearing on the charges he was facing.

The defence argues that the search was unlawful and that investigators subsequently relied on allegations arising from the operation to strengthen the case against him.

It also claims that the state repeatedly sought to seize items on the same facts despite a pending high court application concerning the legality of the original search and seizure operation.

The appeal describes the conduct as part of a broader pattern of investigative overreach.

Another serious allegation concerns the handling of evidence and the state’s reliance on claims that Sibiya had interfered with exhibits.

The defence disputes the allegations of tampering and argues that the magistrate accepted the state’s version without adequately examining the circumstances surrounding the alleged interference.

Sibiya’s lawyers also take issue with the postponement of the proceedings, arguing that the state sought a further seven days without providing sufficient reasons or producing investigative results during the period.

They contend that the postponement effectively prolonged his detention without demonstrating meaningful progress in the investigation.

The defence further disputes the reliability of the alleged threat, arguing that it was not contained in the voice recording or its transcript

The appeal further raises concerns about where Sibiya was detained after his arrest, alleging that he was placed in a high-security section of Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Centre’s C-Max facility in an attempt to break him down.

The allegations extend to the involvement of other law enforcement structures.

Sibiya’s lawyers accuse the referral task team of failing to involve the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) in matters which they argue fell within its investigative jurisdiction.

They contend that the investigating officer, a sergeant Ndlovu, was incorrectly attributed powers that should have been exercised by Ipid members.

The appeal states that the magistrate failed to consider whether the failure to involve Ipid amounted to an offence under the Ipid Act.

It further argues that Ipid has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate rape allegations involving police officers, a point the defence says should have been considered when assessing the investigation.

Another contentious issue is the defence’s allegation that the state relied on evidence that was allegedly backdated.

The notice specifically identifies Exhibit L, which the defence says was presented as an affidavit dated September 18 2026 but was not in the state’s possession on that date.

The appeal states: “Exhibit L, presented as an affidavit dated September 18 2026 by the [state] and deposed to by Mr M, is a recent fabrication and not in possession of the state on September 18 2026.”

The defence argues that the magistrate failed to properly interrogate this discrepancy and its implications for the credibility of the state’s case.

Sibiya also challenges the magistrate’s treatment of allegations that he threatened the complainant’s father, identified in the proceedings as Mr M.

The appeal maintains that the evidence presented by Sibiya’s son, Ofentse Mgwenya, Sgt Matome Rasekgokgoba and Sizakele Dlamini supported his version that Mr M was not the victim of threats but had himself initiated threatening conduct.

The defence further disputes the reliability of the alleged threat, arguing that it was not contained in the voice recording or its transcript.

It accuses the magistrate of relying on evidence that was not properly established during the proceedings and of accepting allegations that the defence says were contradicted by other material before the court.

Sibiya’s lawyers argue that the magistrate failed to properly assess this evidence against the defence’s version.

The defence also accuses the magistrate of descending into the arena during the proceedings by questioning witnesses and introducing considerations which it says ultimately prejudiced Sibiya

The appeal also challenges the manner in which the charges were classified for purposes of the bail application.

The defence argues that the magistrate incorrectly treated the matter as falling under schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, thereby requiring Sibiya to establish exceptional circumstances justifying his release. It maintains that the state did not establish a sufficient evidentiary basis for that classification, particularly in relation to the human trafficking charge.

The notice argues that the facts relied on by the state did not satisfy the legal definition of human trafficking and that the magistrate failed to properly consider the applicable legal principles.

The defence also accuses the magistrate of descending into the arena during the proceedings by questioning witnesses and introducing considerations which it says ultimately prejudiced Sibiya.

It argues that the magistrate allowed inadmissible evidence and disregarded the provisions of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act.

The appeal further challenges the magistrate’s assessment of the risk that Sibiya would interfere with witnesses, evade trial or undermine the administration of justice if released.

His lawyers argue that the court failed to properly consider:

They maintain that the magistrate’s findings were based on an incomplete assessment of the evidence and that the court failed to distinguish between allegations made by investigators and facts established through admissible evidence.

The appeal also raises the question of whether the referral task team’s conduct should itself have formed part of the magistrate’s assessment of the interests of justice.

Sibiya’s lawyers contend that the alleged abuse of power was not peripheral to the bail proceedings but directly relevant to the credibility of the investigation and the fairness of the process.

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.