R300,000 GWM bakkie dispute emerges in Sibiya bail hearing

A R300,000 dispute over a GWM bakkie has emerged as a key part of the defence’s account of the strained relationship between Lieutenant General Shadrack Sibiya and the father of a 16-year-old girl whom Sibiya is accused of sexually grooming.

The alleged financial dispute was raised during Sibiya’s bail hearing at the Randburg Magistrates Court on Wednesday.

According to an affidavit read in court, the girl’s father, referred to as Mr M, allegedly told a spiritual leader that Sibiya owed him about R300,000 relating to the sale of a GWM bakkie.

The defence claims the disagreement contributed to a breakdown in the relationship between the two men.

Sibiya, 59, is facing charges including rape, sexual grooming, human trafficking and negligent possession of a firearm. He denies the allegations.

Defence says bakkie dispute caused a rift

The R300,000 allegation was contained in an affidavit by Sibiya’s cousin, Victor Monamudi, which was presented in support of the bail application.

Monamudi said he had been living with Sibiya since January 2026 and supported the contents of an affidavit submitted by Sibiya’s wife, Sizakele Dlamini.

According to Monamudi, a spiritual leader known as an apostle told members of Sibiya’s family that Mr M had approached him about money allegedly owed to him by Sibiya.

The amount was said to be linked to a GWM bakkie that Mr M had sold to Sibiya.

Sibiya had previously told the court that he owns five vehicles, including a 2022 GWM bakkie.

The defence’s version is that the financial disagreement became part of a wider deterioration in the relationship between the two men after Sibiya allegedly stopped providing Mr M with financial assistance.

However, Monamudi made it clear that he had not personally been present when Mr M allegedly discussed the R300,000 claim with the apostle.

Family says Mr M wanted an intermediary

According to Monamudi’s affidavit, Mr M allegedly approached the apostle after Sibiya’s arrest and asked him to facilitate a meeting with members of Sibiya’s family.

The purpose of the proposed meeting was allegedly to discuss the outstanding amount.

Monamudi said Mr M had provided invoices relating to the money he claimed was still owed.

He further alleged that Mr M indicated that if the family paid the amount, he would withdraw the case against Sibiya.

That allegation has not been tested in court.

Monamudi said members of Sibiya’s family subsequently decided not to become involved in any proposed negotiations.

“We are not parties to whatever transaction or arrangement was alleged to have been concluded between the applicant and Mr M and we do not wish to become involved,” he said in his affidavit.

He also denied that anyone in the family had attempted to offer Mr M money in exchange for withdrawing the case.

Defence questions why Mr M used an intermediary

Sibiya’s lawyer, Estelle Killian SC, questioned why Mr M would allegedly approach a spiritual leader instead of dealing directly with Sibiya or his wife if the R300,000 dispute was the issue he wanted resolved.

She argued that the evidence presented during the bail hearing showed that several people around Sibiya had attempted to intervene or mediate in matters involving the family.

Killian also referred to comments previously made by Bishop Maumela, an associate of Sibiya, outside court.

Maumela had previously spoken publicly about the case and alleged that the charges were linked to a succession battle within the police service. He later withdrew remarks about retaliating against those involved.

Killian said the defence was not suggesting it could explain every aspect of Mr M’s alleged conduct, but was placing the sequence of events before the court.

State says evidence does not undermine its case

State prosecutor Velile Makhasana did not object to the evidence being placed before the court but questioned its relevance and the way WhatsApp messages and other material had been introduced.

The state maintains that it has a strong case against Sibiya and is opposing his release on bail.

The financial dispute is part of the defence’s broader attempt to place the relationship between Sibiya and Mr M in context. It does not, on its own, determine the merits of the criminal allegations against Sibiya.

What Sibiya is accused of

The state alleges that Sibiya raped an 18-year-old woman at a Sandton hotel on 15 May after she had allegedly been given alcohol and lost consciousness.

He is also accused of sexually grooming a 16-year-old girl through WhatsApp between July and August and of possessing and sharing sexually explicit images of her.

The teenager is the daughter of Mr M.

Sibiya is further accused of trafficking three people for sexual exploitation and of negligently possessing a firearm.

The allegations have not been proven in court, and Sibiya has denied the charges.

He was arrested following an investigation by the Commission Recommendations Task Team, which is examining matters arising from the Madlanga Commission.

Bail hearing postponed

Sibiya remains in custody at the Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre in Pretoria.

His bail application has been postponed until 13 October, when proceedings are expected to continue.

For now, the R300,000 GWM dispute remains a contested part of the defence’s version of events, with the court still required to consider the state’s allegations and the evidence presented by both sides.

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com

Source: iol.co.za