Suspended Deputy National Police Commissioner for Crime Detection, Shadrack Sibiya, on Tuesday denied instructing a key witness to share a warrant of arrest with attempted murder accused Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala during testimony at the Madlanga Commission.
The warrant in question was issued for controversial blogger Musa Khawula. The allegations were raised during ongoing cross-examination into Sibiya’s alleged relationship with Matlala and events surrounding the planned execution of the arrest.
Proceedings resumed at 9:30am as the commission continued probing how the warrant was allegedly handled.
Taking the stand for a second day, Sibiya firmly rejected claims that he instructed “Witness F” to share confidential information relating to Khawula’s arrest with Matlala or his private security company.
According to earlier testimony presented before the commission, Witness F alleged that the arrest warrant for Khawula would be carried out by Matlala Security Services rather than official law enforcement officers.
The witness further testified that Matlala allegedly knew Khawula’s whereabouts because the two frequented the same establishments.
Pressed under cross-examination about these locations, Sibiya described them as “after 9” clubs, suggesting they were nightlife venues. However, he denied that this implied any improper coordination or personal involvement in the matter.
The commission, chaired as part of a broader inquiry into alleged misconduct and possible interference within law enforcement structures, has focused heavily on Sibiya’s alleged close relationship with Matlala.
Counsel questioned whether this relationship may have influenced operational decisions, including the handling of sensitive warrants.
Sibiya mentioned that no instructions were given to unlawfully share the warrant and insisted that proper police procedures were followed.
He also distanced himself from any suggestion that a private security entity was authorized to execute a state-issued warrant of arrest.
The inquiry is examining how the warrant was processed, who had access to it, and whether there was any deviation from established protocol.
Central to the commission’s concerns is the allegation that confidential information may have been disclosed to individuals outside official policing channels.
As cross-examination continues, the commission is expected to further interrogate inconsistencies between Sibiya’s version of events and Witness F’s testimony.
Sub-Editor: Baloyi Hlamalane
