Key Takeaways
- Oupa Bafana “King of the Sky” Sindane’s second urgent court application to block his testimony before the Madlanga Commission was dismissed by the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria because no pleadings were filed and his counsel was absent.
- The court struck the matter from the roll and imposed punitive costs on Sindane’s legal team.
- Sindane had previously sought to postpone his appearance, arguing hypertension, a spiritual “ukuthwasa” journey to become a sangoma, and a pending High Court challenge to the commission’s subpoena; the commission rejected that request.
- WhatsApp messages that Sindane tried to suppress reveal alleged financial support for the legal defence of two convicted taxi‑related hitmen, Gwabo Mahlangu and Tshegofatso Richmond Makofane, allegedly arranged by Sindane and fellow taxi tycoon Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni.
- The evidence suggests Sindane and Sibanyoni may have been facilitating the legal strategies of individuals implicated in taxi killings, while both men face separate extortion charges in Mpumalanga.
Background on the Madlanga Commission
The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry was established to investigate corruption, violence, and maladministration within the taxi industry in Gauteng and surrounding provinces. Its mandate includes compelling witnesses to testify, reviewing communications, and uncovering networks that facilitate illegal activities such as extortion, hit‑man contracts, and money laundering. Sindane, a prominent figure in the taxi sector known colloquially as the “King of the Sky,” has been a focal point of the inquiry due to his alleged involvement in protection‑money schemes and his connections to individuals convicted of taxi‑related murders.
First Attempt to Block Testimony
In late September, Sindane approached the Gauteng High Court on the very day he was scheduled to appear before the commission. He filed an urgent application seeking to postpone his testimony, citing multiple grounds: uncontrolled hypertension, a claim of being in “spiritual seclusion” while undergoing the traditional ukuthwasa process to become a sangoma, and the existence of a separate High Court challenge to the commission’s subpoena. Sindane’s legal team argued that these factors rendered his appearance unjustifiable at that time and requested a postponement until his health and spiritual commitments could be addressed.
Commission’s Response to the Postponement Request
The Madlanga Commission’s evidence leadership rejected Sindane’s postponement application, emphasizing that the commission’s procedural rules allow for limited adjournments and that personal health or spiritual claims must be substantiated with medical or cultural evidence, which was not provided. The commission maintained that the inquiry’s timeline and public interest outweighed the alleged impediments, and it proceeded to compel Sindane’s attendance despite his objections.
Details of the Second Urgent Application
Undeterred, Sindane launched a second urgent application aimed at interdicting the commission from compelling him to give evidence, pending the outcome of his High Court challenge to the subpoena’s validity. The application was filed without accompanying pleadings, and on the day of the hearing, Sindane’s counsel failed to appear in court. When the matter was called, the presiding judge noted the absence of both paperwork and legal representation, leading to an immediate decision to strike the application from the court roll.
Court’s Rationale for Striking the Application
The Gauteng High Court justified its ruling on procedural grounds: the lack of filed papers meant there was nothing substantive for the court to consider, and the absence of counsel deprived Sindane of the opportunity to argue his case. Consequently, the court deemed the application an abuse of process and imposed punitive costs on Sindane’s legal team, signalling that frivolous or inadequately prepared urgent applications would not be tolerated.
Implications of the Court’s Decision
By striking Sindane’s second bid, the court reinforced the commission’s authority to enforce subpoenas and gather testimony essential to its fact‑finding mission. The ruling also serves as a deterrent to other witnesses who might attempt to obstruct the inquiry through repetitive or inadequately supported legal maneuvers. Sindane now faces the prospect of being compelled to appear before the commission and answer questions under oath, unless he successfully pursues his separate High Court challenge to the subpoena’s legality.
Relevance of the WhatsApp Evidence
News24 previously reported that the WhatsApp messages Sindane sought to suppress contain conversations indicating that he and Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni allegedly financed the legal defence of Gwabo Mahlangu and Tshegofatso Richmond Makofane—both men convicted of taxi‑related murders. The chats suggest that the two taxi bosses were “essentially supporting the legal defences of these two apparent izinkabi [hitmen] involved in taxi killings,” as stated by Matthew Chaskalson, the commission’s chief evidence leader. This evidence ties Sindane directly to efforts that may have obstructed justice by enabling convicted hitmen to mount legal defences, potentially undermining the commission’s investigative work.
Connection to Ongoing Extortion Charges
Both Sindane and Sibanyoni are currently facing trial in Mpumalanga for allegedly extorting R2.2 million in “protection money” from a local contractor. The WhatsApp evidence, if admitted, could illustrate a pattern of behaviour wherein the duo uses financial resources to influence legal outcomes, thereby reinforcing the prosecution’s narrative of organized criminal conduct within the taxi industry. The commission’s interest in these messages stems from its broader goal of exposing how economic power is leveraged to perpetuate violence and intimidation in the sector.
Prospects for Sindane’s Future Cooperation
With his procedural avenues to block testimony exhausted, Sindane’s options are now limited to either complying with the commission’s summons or pursuing the pending High Court challenge to the subpoena’s validity. Should the court uphold the subpoena, Sindane will be required to testify, potentially providing further insight into the alleged financial support for hitmen’s legal defences and the extortion scheme. Conversely, if the High Court were to invalidate the subpoena, it could delay the commission’s proceedings, though such an outcome appears uncertain given the strong procedural foundation of the commission’s authority.
Conclusion
The recent Gauteng High Court ruling marks a significant setback for Oupa Bafana Sindane’s attempts to evade accountability before the Madlanga Commission. By dismissing his second urgent application on procedural grounds, the court has affirmed the commission’s power to compel testimony and collect critical evidence, including the controversial WhatsApp chats that implicate Sindane in facilitating the legal defence of convicted taxi hitmen. As the commission continues its work, Sindane’s forthcoming testimony—or lack thereof—will be closely watched for its potential to illuminate the intricate links between taxi industry violence, extortion, and the manipulation of legal processes. The outcome will not only affect Sindane’s personal legal standing but also contribute to the broader effort to eradicate corruption and criminality within South Africa’s taxi sector.