Cash to drop charges and threats for associates — Sibiya faces weekend in jail

A fresh threat allegedly made against one of the state witnesses just hours after the Randburg Magistrate’s Court adjourned has intensified the State’s concerns about witness interference in the bail application of suspended Deputy National Commissioner Shadrack Sibiya.

The State told the court on Friday, 2 October 2026 that the latest alleged threat was made on Thursday night, adding to its concerns about the safety of witnesses and victims if Sibiya were to be released on bail.

State prosecutor Velile Makhasana said the latest alleged threat was not an isolated incident, telling the court that victims had also allegedly been approached and offered money to withdraw the charges.

This came as the court continued to hear further evidence in the case against Sibiya, who faces six charges including rape, sexual grooming of a minor, human trafficking and the negligent handling of a firearm.

The court played a recording of a conversation between Sibiya and Mr M, his former bodyguard and associate, who is also the father of one of the victims and main complainant in the case.

‘I can deal with you very quickly’

In the recording, Sibiya could be heard reminding Mr M of the financial support he had previously given Mr M before accusing Mr M of speaking against him.

“I supported you, giving you money, R10,000s, R4,000s, tickets, I even gave you my card to buy groceries… I was always with you yet you were speaking ill of me, telling them to arrest me, but I never said anything.

“I can deal with you very quickly and easy but I never did that, I used to take you as my younger brother.”

How the girls ended up in a strip club

The court was told of the events that allegedly led to three girls being taken to The Grand, a venue that includes a hotel, restaurant and strip club.

Investigating officer Detective Sergeant Nokukhanya Ndlovu said the venue had strict entry requirements and charged high entrance fees, with entry restricted to people aged 21 and older.

The State alleges the girls were able to enter after Sibiya spoke to the venue manager and instructed one of them to pretend to be his daughter who was there to celebrate a birthday with friends.

Ndlovu said Sibiya had allegedly told the girls to dress “classy” before they went to the venue because they had been wearing sneakers and jeans.

They were also allegedly instructed not to use their cellphones while at the club and hotel, specifically around Sibiya.

The outing had initially been planned differently, according to Ndlovu, who told the court that the girls had contacted Mr M and asked him to drive them to a mall where they planned to eat and take photographs.

But before they left, Sibiya allegedly called Mr M and changed the plans, telling Mr M that he knew of a “better place” and had been around the area at the time.

Mr M then allegedly drove the girls to The Grand, in Sandton.

The girls were adults

During cross-examination, Sibiya’s lawyer, Advocate Amanda Nel, challenged aspects of the State’s version of what had happened at the venue.

Nel told Ndlovu that “in the eyes of the law, these three girls were adults” and questioned whether they had expressed any discomfort about being at the strip club.

Sibiya’s other lawyer, SC Estelle Killian, argued that the State was creating the impression that he engaged in sexual activity with underage girls, which she said was not the case. According to Sibiya, the sexual encounter with the 18-year-old who accused him of rape was consensual.

Naked photographs

Earlier on Thursday, the court heard that one of the teenagers, referred to as ZM, and Sibiya were in constant communication, with some WhatsApp messages sent at midnight. In one of the messages, Sibiya told the teen he had been stressed by the Madlanga Commission.

She appeared to be confused, asking what a commission was. In another text, Sibiya reached out to the teenager about something he had been promised. Minutes later, she shared a four-minute explicit video with Sibiya, to which he responded, “This is hot. I want more.”

On Friday, the court also heard about 10 naked photographs of the teenager allegedly sent by Sibiya to ZM.

Ndlovu testified that ZM had told police that Sibiya had obtained the photographs without her knowledge and she had been terrified thereafter and never communicated with him again.

During cross-examination, Nel questioned Ndlovu about the photographs and asked whether she had investigated why a 16-year-old girl had naked photographs of herself, including photographs of her genitalia.

Ndlovu said she had asked about the issue but described it as sensitive, and said a social worker would later explain the circumstances to the court.

Nel also asked whether there was any possibility that ZM’s father had been involved in distributing his daughter’s photographs. Ndlovu said there was not, at least according to her evidence.

Why was Mr M working for Sibiya?

The investigator also explained her understanding of the relationship between Sibiya and Mr M, saying Mr M would follow instructions because of his position as an employee and the trust the girls placed in him.

“Mr M is acting on the instruction of his employer. The girls are with the person who is their guardian, whom they trust, and therefore, he has the powers of whatever that is asking to be done, and everybody understands that his coercion, or whatever that instructions he gives, they will follow,” Ndlovu said.

Nel questioned why Sibiya would employ Mr M as a bodyguard and driver when he already had state protection.

Ndlovu said state protection was provided from Monday to Friday, and Mr M allegedly worked from Friday to Sunday and was paid R10,000 a day.

Defence disputes Mr M’s role

Sibiya’s legal team disputed this evidence, with Nel telling the court that Mr M had never been employed by Sibiya as a bodyguard, protector or driver.

“Well, it’s my instructions, like I said yesterday again, is that Mr M was never employed by the applicant as a bodyguard or protector or a driver … he denies what Mr M told you,” Nel said.

The defence intends to lead evidence implicating Mr M in the alleged offences. “In fact, the person who is guilty of all these allegations is Mr M. He is the one who perpetrated these acts,” Nel said.