Top Police Boss Fights Back in Scandal Inquiry

Sibiya Demands Chance to Question His Superiors

Suspended deputy police chief Shadrack Sibiya has formally asked the investigation commission (the Madlanga Commission) for the right to question his two bosses. He wants to cross-examine National Police Commissioner Gen Fannie Masemola and KwaZulu-Natal police head Maj-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. Sibiya claims they gave the inquiry “false information” that misled everyone.

The Big Allegations Against Sibiya

Claims of Cash Payments and Gifts

The request comes as more allegations pile up against Sibiya. This week, a witness told the commission that alleged crime boss Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala said he paid Sibiya huge amounts of money. The claims include:

• Regular cash payments of about R500,000.
• R300,000 for Sibiya’s son’s wedding.
• R2 million for a plot of land meant for a B&B.

The witness said Matlala claimed he gave this money directly to Sibiya.

Sibiya’s Strong Denials and Counter-Charges

Sworn Statement Rejects Friendship with Matlala

In a sworn statement (affidavit) from October 10, Sibiya fires back. He says Gen Masemola “materially misled” the commission with testimony that was “false” and “implausible.”

Sibiya denies being friends with Matlala. “I vehemently deny that I am, or have ever been, a close friend of Matlala. No credible evidence has been produced,” he stated.

Disputing the WhatsApp Messages

Gen Mkhwanazi had pointed to WhatsApp messages between Matlala and a businessman as proof of Sibiya’s link to Matlala. Sibiya says he can’t confirm if those messages are real or taken out of context. “Any attempt to rely on these alleged messages… is misleading and unfair,” he argues.

A Different Story on Their First Meeting

Sibiya insists he only met Matlala once, in January 2024, while he was acting police commissioner. He says Matlala came with a lawyer to complain about a building for a tender. Sibiya claims he passed the complaint to Masemola, who supposedly replied: “Public works is not going to tell SAPS how to utilise the building.”

The Fight Over the Disbanded Police Team

The 121 Dockets Mystery

A major point of conflict is what happened to 121 investigation dockets from the KwaZulu-Natal Political Killings Task Team (PKTT). Both Masemola and Mkhwanazi claimed they didn’t know the dockets were moved to headquarters.

Sibiya calls this impossible. “It defies belief that both… could have been wholly unaware,” he said. He suggests they are making up a story later to cover themselves.

Who Signed the Disbandment Plan?

Sibiya accuses Masemola of changing his story about who approved the plan to disband the PKTT. Sibiya says he prepared the plan with another general and presented it to Masemola in January 2025.

According to Sibiya, Masemola said the plan was just “operational” and told Sibiya to sign it himself. Now, Masemola suggests he was concerned about the minister’s role in the disbandment. Sibiya calls this a “clear afterthought” and an attempt to “distance himself from decisions he previously endorsed.”

The Stakes for Sibiya

Sibiya warns that if he can’t question Masemola directly, he will suffer “serious and irreparable prejudice.” He argues his “professional and public reputation will be unjustly damaged” by claims he can’t challenge.

The commission has received his application but hasn’t decided yet.

What’s Next?

The commission must now decide whether Sibiya gets his chance to question the two top officers. His affidavit paints a picture of bosses who are either mistaken or deliberately creating a false narrative. Their testimony has strongly linked him to a controversial businessman, while he maintains any contact was minimal and official.

This is a classic “he said, she said” battle playing out in a public inquiry, with Sibiya fighting to clear his name as serious accusations of corruption swirl around him.

Conclusion

This case is more than just one man’s denial. It’s a high-stakes clash inside South Africa’s police force. Sibiya is pushing back hard against his superiors’ damaging testimony, claiming they are rewriting history. The commission’s next move—whether to grant his cross-examination request—will be a critical moment in this unfolding drama. For now, the public is left with two very different versions of events, and the truth hinges on who the commission ultimately believes.