Key Takeaways
- Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni testified before the Madlanga Commission, framing himself as a persecuted figure and quoting Matthew 5:11‑12.
- WhatsApp messages from associate Bafana “King of the Sky” Sindane were presented as evidence linking Sibanyoni to threats, the “new sheriff in town” remark, and alleged extortion of businessman Dr Tengane Ntuli.
- Sibanyoni denied sending or remembering the messages, claimed the threatening language referred to community action rather than violence, and blamed Sindane for any wrongdoing.
- Video footage showed Sibanyoni demanding a 30 % local stake in PUTCO and warning that disruptions would be “known as us,” coinciding with the torching of 50 PUTCO buses in January 2025.
- He admitted financing the legal defence of convicted hitman Gwabo Mahlangu, saying the hitman’s mother had asked for his help.
- Sibanyoni acknowledged receiving R100 000 monthly from Tengane Ntuli under a verbal “local content” partnership, though he performed no physical work for the payments and rejected characterisation of the arrangement as extortion.
- The commission challenged Sibanyoni’s blanket claim of privilege against self‑incrimination, insisting it must be raised in response to specific questions.
- Sibanyoni left the hearing with a warning to the commissioners, and public hearings were stood down until resumption on 9 November.
Background to the Testimony
Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni, a prominent taxi industry boss, appeared before the Madlanga Commission amid a swirl of allegations stemming from a R500 million tender process. The commission’s inquiry focused on whether Sibanyoni had used intimidation, extortion, or violence to secure business advantages. His testimony followed a week of intense scrutiny that included leaked WhatsApp messages, video evidence of a meeting with President Cyril Ramaphosa and Minister Gwede Mantashe, and reports of arson attacks on PUTCO buses. Sibanyoni sought to frame his ordeal as a form of persecution, citing the biblical passage Matthew 5:11‑12, which speaks of blessings for those who suffer for righteousness’ sake. This opening set the tone for a defence that blended religious rhetoric with denials of direct involvement in the alleged misconduct.
WhatsApp Messages and the “New Sheriff” Remark
Advocate Matthew Chaskalson confronted Sibanyoni with a series of WhatsApp messages extracted from the phone of his close associate, Bafana “King of the Sky” Sindane. The messages included statements in which Sibanyoni was described as the “new sheriff in town,” a reference seemingly tied to the aftermath of former taxi boss Mswazi Msibi’s death. Sibanyoni rejected the label, insisting he preferred to be called “the president” and maintained that he neither sent nor recalled receiving the contested texts. He argued that the messages were fabricated or taken out of context by Sindane, who, according to Sibanyoni, acted alone in sending threatening communications. The commission pressed him on whether his denial strained credibility given the timing and content of the messages, but Sibanyoni stood firm that the evidence did not prove his personal involvement.
PUTCO Stake Demand and the Bus Torchings
A pivotal piece of evidence was video footage from a 2024 meeting involving President Cyril Ramaphosa and Minister Gwede Mantashe, during which Sibanyoni demanded a 30 % local stake in PUTCO. He warned that if the public heard of disruptions to the bus company’s operations, “they must know it’s us.” The commission linked this statement to the subsequent torching of approximately fifty PUTCO buses in January 2025, an act that caused significant public transport disruption. Sibanyoni denied ordering or orchestrating the attacks, asserting that his wording referred to legitimate community involvement rather than violent sabotage. He contended that the arson was the work of unrelated criminal elements and that his remarks had been misinterpreted as a threat when they were merely a call for local empowerment.
Financing a Convicted Hitman’s Defence
The inquiry turned to Sibanyoni’s relationship with Gwabo Mahlangu, a convicted hitman implicated in several taxi‑related murders. Sibanyoni admitted to covering Mahlangu’s legal fees, explaining his involvement with a simple statement: “His mother asked me.” This admission raised questions about the extent of his support for individuals accused of violent crimes and whether such assistance constituted tacit endorsement of illegal activity. Sibanyoni sought to distance himself from Mahlangu’s actions, emphasizing that his aid was purely humanitarian and motivated by a personal plea from the hitman’s mother. Nevertheless, the commission highlighted the potential impropriety of a prominent businessman financing the defence of a convicted criminal, especially amid allegations of intimidation and violence within the taxi sector.
Payments from Dr Tengane Ntuli and the “Local Content” Claim
Another focal point was the financial arrangement between Sibanyoni and businessman Dr Tengane Ntuli. Sibanyoni acknowledged receiving R100 000 monthly from Ntuli, which he described as stemming from a verbal “local content” partnership intended to promote local economic participation. He conceded that he performed no tangible work or services in exchange for these payments, yet he rejected the characterisation of the arrangement as extortion. Instead, he alleged that the threatening messages sent to Ntuli—also traced to Sindane’s phone—were the sole initiative of his associate, claiming Sindane acted alone in attempting to extort money. The commission examined whether the lack of reciprocal effort rendered the payments suspect, probing the line between legitimate business facilitation and coercive enrichment.
Legal Strategy and the Privilege Against Self‑Incrimination
Throughout his testimony, Sibanyoni’s legal team repeatedly invoked his pending criminal matters in Delmas and Kwaggafontein as grounds for claiming privilege against self‑incrimination. The commission, led by Advocate Chaskalson and Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, pushed back, insisting that such a privilege must be asserted in direct response to specific questions rather than employed as a blanket shield against all inquiry. They warned that indiscriminate claims could obstruct the fact‑finding process and undermine the commission’s mandate. Sibanyoni maintained that his silence on certain topics was warranted, but the commission’s stance underscored the procedural limits of self‑incrimination protections in an investigative setting.
Closing Remarks and the Outlook
Sibanyoni concluded his appearance with a pointed warning to the commissioners: “See me when I see you… If you don’t, we shall see one another in the near future.” The remark, laden with ambiguity, was interpreted by observers as either a veiled threat or a declaration of resilience. Following his testimony, the Madlanga Commission announced a temporary adjournment of its public hearings, scheduling resumption for 9 November. The pause allows the commission to digest the voluminous evidence presented, including digital communications, video recordings, and financial records, while preparing for subsequent phases of the inquiry. The case continues to attract significant public interest, given its implications for governance, industry regulation, and the interplay between business power and alleged criminal conduct in South Africa’s transport sector.