Former deputy national police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya will remain in custody after the Randburg Magistrate’s Court refused his bail application, citing alleged threats against a state witness, the risk of evidence tampering and concerns about the vulnerability of a teenage complainant.
Sibiya faces allegations including the rape of an 18-year-old woman, the sexual grooming of a 16-year-old girl, the possession and distribution of sexually explicit images involving the teenager, and human trafficking for sexual exploitation.
He denies the allegations and has described the charges as “trumped up”. The allegations have not been tested at trial.
Magistrate Hleziphi Mkhasibe said Sibiya had failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying his release and that the interests of justice did not permit bail.
“The finding of the court is that the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances that permit the applicant’s release on bail,” Mkhasibe said.
“As a result, bail is refused and the applicant is to remain in custody.”
The case was postponed for further investigation, with Sibiya expected to return to court in late November.
Court says allegations strike at former officer’s oath
Mkhasibe said Sibiya had taken an oath as a police officer to protect the public, safeguard the country against criminal activity and uphold high ethical standards.
The allegations before the court, she said, suggested that he may have violated the principles he had sworn to uphold. Her comments formed part of the bail ruling and were not a finding that Sibiya had committed the alleged offences.
Sibiya resigned from the South African Police Service through his legal representative shortly after disciplinary proceedings against him began on 12 October.
He was arrested on 21 September by members of the Madlanga Commission’s Recommendations Task Team and appeared in court the following day.
He faces five charges, including rape, human trafficking, promoting the sexual grooming of a child and two counts of sexual grooming of a child.
Represented by senior counsel Estelle Killian, Sibiya argued that the State did not have concrete evidence to support the human-trafficking allegations and had failed to establish grounds for his continued detention.
Mkhasibe rejected that argument at the bail stage, while emphasising that the trial court would ultimately decide whether the charges were proven.
“The State did not only allege a strong case against the applicant; they presented evidence that the State's case is strong against the applicant,” she said.
The magistrate said she had considered Sibiya’s constitutional right to liberty and the presumption of innocence, but found that those rights had to be weighed against the interests of justice and the risks identified in the evidence.
Alleged threat to state witness
A key issue in the bail ruling was evidence concerning a state witness identified in court as Mr M, the father of the teenage complainant.
The court heard that Sibiya allegedly threatened Mr M and his family after being confronted about his daughter’s allegations. One statement attributed to Sibiya was:
“The easiest person to deal with is you. I can deal with you very quickly and easily.”
The defence argued that the remark should not be interpreted as a threat and formed part of a wider conversation that had not been transcribed in full.
Mkhasibe found, however, that Mr M understood the statement as threatening, considering the relationship between the men and the circumstances in which it was allegedly made.
“When a person makes such utterances, there can never be any interpretation other than a threat of harm,” she said.
The magistrate said a second alleged threat, reportedly made in the presence of investigating officer Sergeant Nokukhanya Ndlovu, strengthened Mr M’s account.
Ndlovu reportedly told the court that Mr M appeared shaken and believed Sibiya would carry out the threats.
“The second threat establishes a dangerous pattern of behaviour,” Mkhasibe said.
She said Sibiya knew that Mr M was a state witness who had laid charges against him.
“In threatening Mr M, he threatened a witness, knowing very well that he was a witness,” she said.
The court found that bail conditions would not adequately protect Mr M or prevent further interference with witnesses.
Wiped phone raises evidence-tampering concerns
The court also considered allegations that a cellphone linked to the alleged offences had been wiped, removing communications between Sibiya and the teenage complainant.
The State alleged that Sibiya had asked the girl to delete their conversations in an effort to conceal evidence. The allegations concern the preservation of potential evidence and remain untested at trial.
“The applicant’s actions give us a window into his intention,” Mkhasibe said.
She said that, as a former senior police officer, Sibiya would have understood the importance of preserving evidence and the legal consequences of destroying or concealing it.
The court also heard that, during a search of Sibiya’s home, he allegedly told officers he had disposed of the phone because he knew his phones were being intercepted.
Mkhasibe said the alleged statement lent weight to the State’s contention that material on the phone had been deliberately destroyed.
“To my mind, the accused will go to any length and there is no end to what he will do to tamper with evidence that implicates him,” she said.
The magistrate concluded that Sibiya’s release could create a risk that evidence would be interfered with or that witnesses could be influenced.
Complainant’s vulnerability considered
The court also considered a statement from the 18-year-old complainant, who reportedly expressed fear about Sibiya being released and said she was suicidal.
The State had enrolled her in the Witness Protection Programme.
Mkhasibe also referred to information that one of the complainant’s friends had allegedly been approached by someone seeking a statement that contradicted her evidence.
The magistrate said she could not personally attribute the alleged approach to Sibiya, who was in custody at the time, but found that the incident required investigation.
The court further considered allegations that Sibiya had held secret conversations with the 16-year-old girl and asked her to record sexually explicit videos.
Mkhasibe said the alleged requests to conceal communications raised concerns about the girl’s vulnerability and the possibility that she could be influenced if Sibiya were released.
The names of the complainants and other identifying details have not been published to protect their privacy.
Defence claims involving wife dismissed at bail stage
The defence had alleged that Mr M threatened Sibiya’s wife, Sizakele Dlamini, and that Sibiya’s cousin, Victor Munamudi, supported those claims.
The court heard that the allegations were connected to a dispute involving approximately R300,000 that Sibiya allegedly owed Mr M for a bakkie.
Mkhasibe questioned why Mr M had not raised the alleged debt with Dlamini if he had access to her.
She found that messages and recordings presented to the court did not establish that Mr M had threatened Dlamini. The communications, she said, fell short of the legal definition of intimidation.
The magistrate added that recordings involving Mr M and an unidentified man could not establish the defence’s claims for purposes of the bail application.
She said those issues could be explored during the trial if they became relevant.
Court rejects premature fabricated-charge claims
Mkhasibe also considered video footage depicting the murder of a businessman. She found that the evidence presented at the bail hearing did not connect Sibiya to that killing and said further investigation was needed to identify the perpetrators.
The magistrate did, however, criticise the State for not charging Sibiya under the Firearms Control Act in connection with an alleged failure to safeguard a firearm.
She described the State’s handling of that issue as “distasteful” and said prosecutors had failed to provide a plausible explanation for the omission.
Mkhasibe said Sibiya’s claim that the charges had been fabricated was premature. Whether the allegations were substantiated would be determined at trial.
She ultimately found that the alleged threats, the potential for evidence tampering and the vulnerability of the teenage complainant outweighed the case for release.
NPA welcomes bail refusal
The National Prosecuting Authority welcomed the decision to deny Sibiya bail.
NPA spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago said the authority remained committed to prosecuting cases involving alleged sexual offences, human trafficking and the exploitation of children.
“The decision to deny bail underscores the importance of safeguarding vulnerable complainants and protecting the integrity of the criminal justice process,” he said.
Sibiya remains in custody while investigations continue. The bail ruling does not amount to a conviction, and the State will still be required to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.