Former deputy national police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya has accused investigators attached to the Madlanga commission’s referral task team of abusing their powers during his arrest and detention. Sibiya, who is facing serious charges including rape and human trafficking, made the allegations in a bail appeal filed at the Johannesburg high court on November 5. His lawyers argue that the magistrate failed to properly consider allegations of investigative misconduct when determining whether he should remain behind bars.
Sibiya was arrested on September 21 following allegations that he raped an 18-year-old woman at a Sandton nightclub in May. He has denied the allegations, maintaining that the sexual encounter was consensual. Sibiya is also accused of sexually grooming a 16-year-old girl and human trafficking involving three individuals. The state opposed his release on bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the risks of witness intimidation and interference with evidence.
Sibiya’s lawyers take issue with the execution of an arrest warrant, alleging that investigators orchestrated an arrest at premises different from the address specified in the warrant. They also claim that investigators obtained an additional search and seizure warrant covering unrelated offences, which they argue was unlawful. The defence disputes allegations that Sibiya interfered with exhibits and argues that the magistrate accepted the state’s version without adequately examining the circumstances.
The appeal describes the conduct of the referral task team as part of a broader pattern of investigative overreach. Sibiya’s lawyers accuse the team of failing to involve the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) in matters that fell within its investigative jurisdiction. They contend that the investigating officer was incorrectly attributed powers that should have been exercised by Ipid members.
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 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. The appeal maintains that evidence presented by Sibiya’s son and others supported his version that the complainant’s father initiated threatening conduct. The defence disputes the reliability of the alleged threat, arguing that it was not contained in the voice recording or its transcript.
Sibiya’s lawyers argue that the magistrate failed to properly consider allegations of investigative misconduct, and the appeal raises concerns about the methods used by the referral task team and the circumstances surrounding Sibiya’s arrest and detention. The defence is seeking to have the decision to deny bail overturned, and the case will continue to unfold in the coming weeks.
Key points
- Sibiya accuses investigators of abusing their powers during his arrest and detention.
- The defence disputes allegations of tampering with evidence and argues that the magistrate accepted the state’s version without adequate examination.
- Sibiya’s lawyers claim that the state relied on backdated evidence, which the magistrate failed to properly investigate.
