Court Hears Teen Allegedly Told Her Father She Had a Crush on Suspended Police Deputy Commissioner Sibiya

The Randburg Magistrate’s Court has heard that a 16-year-old girl whom suspended Deputy National Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Shadrack Sibiya is accused of sexually grooming allegedly told her father that she had a crush on the senior police officer.

The claim emerged during Sibiya’s bail application on Tuesday. He faces five charges, including rape, sexual grooming and human trafficking. Sibiya has denied the allegations and asked the court to release him on bail of R20 000.

The suspended police general was arrested last week following an investigation by the Madlanga Commission’s Recommendations Task Team, which is examining matters arising from the Madlanga Commission.

The State alleges that Sibiya raped an 18-year-old teenager at a Sandton hotel on 16 May 2026 after she was allegedly given alcohol and became unconscious. He is also accused of grooming a 16-year-old girl through WhatsApp between July and August, including allegedly possessing and distributing sexual images of her.

[do_widget id=super_rss_reader-3] –> –> The 16-year-old is the daughter of an associate of Sibiya. The State further alleges that Sibiya trafficked three people for sexual exploitation.

Sibiya, however, has rejected the allegations. During his bail application, he told the court that he had been invited to a braai at the 16-year-old girl’s home by her father, who he described as an associate. He said the man later asked him to collect the teenager from Centurion and gave him her cellphone number.

Sibiya said he picked up the teenager as requested. A week after the braai, he said, the girl’s father visited him and appeared disturbed. According to Sibiya, the man told him he had received a video of his daughter from an undisclosed source.

“On this occasion he was disturbed and told me that he received a video of his daughter masturbating from an undisclosed source.”

Sibiya said the man forwarded the video to him and described it as offensive. He then claimed that the father told him his daughter had a crush on him before phoning her in Sibiya’s presence.

“He told me in the same breath that his daughter had a crush on me and proceeded to phone her in my presence.”

Sibiya added, “He then confronted his daughter telephonically with this fact, and she confirmed that she indeed had a crush on me.”

He told the court that he felt uncomfortable about the situation and questioned why the video had been shared with him.

“I felt very uncomfortable with what was taking place and asked him why he found it necessary to disseminate video material of this nature, as I considered it unlawful.”

Sibiya said he later contacted the teenager and asked her why her father would circulate a compromising video of her. He claimed that she was surprised to learn that her father had the video and asked him to forward it to her so that she could establish whether what he had said was true.

“She was surprised to learn that her father was in possession of this video and asked me to forward it to her so that she could establish the truth of what I had told her. I forwarded the video on her request.”

He further told the court that the teenager confirmed she was the person shown in the video but did not know how her father had obtained it. Sibiya said she then sent him similar videos and asked him to investigate them.

“The teenager confirmed that it was indeed her portrayed in the video, but she did not know how her father got hold of the material. In the same breath, she volunteered similar videos, asking me to investigate the same.”

The magistrate questioned why the girl’s father would have needed to send the video to Sibiya. The defence objected to the question being answered, arguing that the father was the person who should explain why he had sent the material.

Sibiya also gave the court his version of his meetings with the 18-year-old woman and other people. He said he met them on two occasions on consecutive Friday and Saturday nights at the Garden Court Hotel.

“This was on consecutive Friday and Saturday nights at the Garden Court Hotel in a hotel room.”

He denied the State’s allegations that he had delivered, recruited or transported people for sexual exploitation. Sibiya claimed that another man, referred to in court as Mr M, was responsible for those actions.

“I submit that these allegations are devoid of any substance and truth, and I will show that, in fact, Mr. M was the person who had perpetrated said actions.”

Sibiya also disputed the State’s description of the alleged victims and rejected the claim that they had been sexually exploited or deceived.

“I submit that the victims are neither vulnerable nor were they sexually exploited nor did I deceive them in any manner, and I have demonstrated this supra.”

He questioned why the Recommendations Task Team was investigating the case and challenged the circumstances surrounding his arrest.

“With reference to my submissions pertaining to the ultra vires actions of the State, acting under the guise of the power and jurisdiction of the CRTT, I submit that my arrest emanates from an ostensible abuse of power based on a defective warrant.”

Sibiya said the 16-year-old girl’s father had previously called him and asked him to take a break and join him at the Garden Court. He said he arrived late on Friday evening, at about 10pm, and found the man in a hotel room with the teenage girl, the 18-year-old and another person.

“Prior to this meeting, the teen’s father phoned me and told me to take a break and join him at the Garden Court.”

“They clearly arrived there on their own steam. I did not transport anybody.”

Sibiya claimed that both alleged victims were intoxicated when he arrived and that he stayed for only about 30 minutes before leaving.

“When I arrived on the said Friday evening, it was apparent that both victims were intoxicated.”

On the following Saturday, Sibiya said the girl’s father again invited him to the hotel, telling him that the women wanted to see him and were unhappy that he had left early the previous night.

“I arrived at the Garden Court at around 19:00 and found all of them again in the same hotel room. The ladies said they were hungry and wanted food.”

He said he suggested that they eat at the Grand restaurant and advised them to dress appropriately because they were wearing revealing clothing.

“I also suggested that they dress appropriately as they were wearing very revealing clothing.”

The State had previously alleged that Sibiya instructed the girls to change their clothing and told them he would take them to a classy place, which was unknown to them at that stage. Sibiya gave a different account, saying the group agreed to travel in two vehicles for supper at the Grand.

“By agreement we travelled in two vehicles, to have supper at the Grand.”

In his bail submissions, Sibiya argued that his continued detention was not required in the interests of justice. He said his release would not cause public disorder or undermine public safety, and claimed that he could afford bail of R20 000.

“I respectfully submit that should I be released on bail, my release will not induce a scene of shock or outrage and will not disturb the public order or undermine the public peace or security. I further submit that my safety will not be jeopardized by being released on bail.”

He added that the court should balance his personal interests against the interests of justice.

“I humbly request that the Court weigh my personal interests against the interest of justice, as required by law.”

Sibiya also claimed that his arrest had been planned and was based on allegations he described as false.

“I submit that my arrest was a well-orchestrated, diabolical plan aimed at incarcerating me based on false and trumped-up allegations.”

State prosecutor Velile Makhasana requested a postponement to allow the State to prepare after receiving documents from the defence on Tuesday. The State also wants to cross-examine Advocate Rashad Moosa.

Sibiya’s bail application was postponed to Thursday. He remains in custody at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Services.

Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. Necessary Necessary Always Enabled Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information. Non-necessary Non-necessary Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website. SAVE & ACCEPT Loading Comments… You must be logged in to post a comment.