Key Takeaways
- Sizakele Dlamini, wife of suspended deputy national police commissioner Lt‑Gen Shadrack Sibiya, filed an affidavit stating that the complainant’s father (“Mr M”) initiated contact to withdraw charges against her husband.
- The affidavit describes phone calls and a home visit from an assistant pastor (“the apostle”) who conveyed Mr M’s willingness to meet and drop the case, citing Mr M’s emotional reaction to seeing Sibiya weep in court and pressure from individuals named Mr Khumalo and Mkhwanazi.
- Dlamini repeatedly declined the proposed meetings, asserting that any contact was initiated solely by Mr M and that she and her family never sought to influence or intimidate him.
- Subsequent WhatsApp messages from Mr M, which Dlamini viewed as threatening, led her to block his number.
- An affidavit from Sibiya’s cousin, Victor Monamodi, corroborates Dlamini’s account, and the bail hearing was adjourned for further proceedings.
Background of the Case
Lt‑Gen Shadrack Sibiya, the suspended deputy national police commissioner, appeared before the Randburg magistrate’s court for the continuation of his formal bail application. He faces serious charges including rape, human trafficking, and sexual grooming, allegations that stem from the alleged abuse of a 16‑year‑old complainant. The state has argued that Sibiya attempted to intimidate and influence the complainant’s father, Mr M, in an effort to have the case withdrawn. The bail hearing has therefore become a focal point for examining whether any improper pressure was exerted on the victim’s family.
Submission of Dlamini’s Affidavit
During the proceedings, Sibiya’s legal team presented an affidavit submitted by his wife, Sizakele Dlamini, to support the bail application. The affidavit detailed a series of communications she allegedly received from both a church figure and Mr M, positioning the latter as the initiator of contact aimed at withdrawing the charges. By introducing this document, the defence sought to counter the state’s narrative of intimidation and demonstrate that any outreach originated from Mr M himself, not from Sibiya or his family.
First Contact via the Apostle
According to Dlamini’s affidavit, on 23 September she received a phone call from a person she identified as “the apostle,” an assistant pastor at ECG Church who had been providing counselling to the family for six months. The apostle informed her that Mr M wished to visit her home to discuss Sibiya’s arrest and was willing to drop the case. He explained that the idea originated from Mr M, who felt uncomfortable initiating the discussion himself because he was unsure how it would be received.
Mr M’s Stated Motives
When Dlamini asked why Mr M wanted to withdraw the charges, the apostle reportedly said that Mr M felt troubled after seeing Sibiya weep in court. Additionally, the apostle claimed that Mr M was uneasy after certain individuals urged him to “give the guy to them,” suggesting external pressure on the complainant’s father. Mr M allegedly expressed a desire to address the matter directly with the family and then set it aside, hoping to resolve the situation amicably.
Dlamini’s Response and the Apostle’s Home Visit
Fearing a potential setup, Dlamini told the apostle she was unwilling to speak with Mr M. They agreed not to entertain the proposal and concluded the call in prayer. The following day, 24 September, the apostle visited Dlamini’s home for a prayer session with her family. During this visit, he reiterated Mr M’s desire to meet and withdraw the charges, adding that Mr M felt pressured by individuals named “Mr Khumalo” and “Mkhwanazi” to provide more information about Sibiya. Dlamini again declined, stating that her family did not wish to meet with Mr M and that he should proceed with the case, noting that no further discussions were held with the pastor on the matter.
Clarification of Relationships
In her affidavit, Dlamini clarified that Mr M was never employed by Sibiya and was known to her only as a friend of her husband. She emphasized that neither she nor any family member at any stage requested or instructed the apostle to make contact with Mr M or any other person linked to the matter. This clarification aimed to dispel any suggestion that the Sibiya family had orchestrated the outreach to influence the complainant’s father.
Later Phone Call and WhatsApp Messages
Later that evening, around 11 p.m., Dlamini missed a call from Mr M while taking a shower. Upon noticing the missed call, she summoned Sibiya’s mother into the room to record the conversation before returning the call. During the call, Mr M asked if she recognised his voice, which she confirmed. He explained his reasons for laying the charges and said he had contacted the apostle to arrange a meeting with the family. Dlamini reiterated that she had no interest in meeting him. On 2 October, Mr M sent Dlamini several WhatsApp messages, including a lengthy text, two images, and a voice note. In these messages, Mr M expressed frustration over how Sibiya’s defence was portraying him in court. Viewing the messages as threatening, Dlamini blocked his number and ceased all communication.
Corroborating Evidence and Court Proceedings
The court also received an affidavit from Victor Monamodi, Sibiya’s cousin, which corroborated Dlamini’s account of the communications and the family’s stance. Monamodi’s statement reinforced the defence’s position that any contact was initiated solely by Mr M and that the Sibiya family did not seek to exert improper influence. After hearing the affidavits and arguments, the magistrate postponed the matter to Tuesday for further hearing, allowing both sides additional time to prepare their submissions regarding bail and the broader allegations.
Implications for the Bail Application
The submission of Dlamini’s affidavit, backed by Monamodi’s corroborating statement, aims to undermine the state’s claim of intimidation by demonstrating that the complainant’s father reached out voluntarily. If the court accepts this narrative, it could weaken the prosecution’s argument that Sibiya attempted to interfere with the case, potentially influencing the bail decision. Conversely, the state may contend that the perceived willingness to withdraw charges still reflects an improper attempt to settle the matter outside the judicial process. The upcoming hearing will be pivotal in determining whether Sibiya remains detained pending trial or is granted bail while the serious charges against him proceed.