McBride tells MPs Sibiya was framed and warns police watchdog is still not independent

McBride tells MPs Sibiya was framed and warns police watchdog is still not independent

In a tense sitting at Parliament this week, former Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) head Robert McBride painted a picture of a police watchdog undermined from within and senior officers caught in the crossfire of political battles.

Addressing an ad hoc committee in Cape Town, McBride said Deputy National Police Commissioner Shadrack Sibiya was wrongly implicated in a case that ultimately cost McBride his job, and warned that unless Ipid is structurally independent, similar controversies will continue to haunt South Africa’s policing system.

“A stitch-up from the start”

McBride told MPs that when he took over as Ipid executive director in 2014, he asked to be briefed on several high-profile investigations, including those involving former Hawks head Anwa Dramat and Sibiya.

What he found, he said, was deeply troubling.

According to McBride, the investigation into the alleged unlawful rendition of four Zimbabwean nationals was conducted by members of SAPS Crime Intelligence a unit with no legal mandate to investigate such matters. He claimed false statements were used to implicate both Dramat and Sibiya.

Cellphone records, McBride testified, showed Sibiya was nowhere near the alleged crime scene.

“He was getting framed for a case he had nothing to do with,” McBride told the committee, adding dryly that Sibiya would have needed the ability to be in two places at once for the allegations to hold.

Ipid’s final report, he said, cleared both men a finding that directly contradicted the position taken at the time by then police minister Nathi Nhleko.

How McBride ended up suspended

The fallout was swift. In March 2015, Nhleko suspended McBride, accusing him of interfering with a report that recommended criminal charges against Sibiya and Dramat.

That suspension, however, did not stand the test of time. In September 2016, the Constitutional Court overturned Nhleko’s decision, allowing McBride to return to office. His contract eventually expired in February 2019.

For many South Africans following the case over the years, the episode became a symbol of the uneasy relationship between political power, police leadership and independent oversight.

Ad Hoc Committee on Lt Gen Mkhwanazi’s Allegations – Mr Robert McBride is our witness for today. @SAPoliceService #adhocMkhwanazi #AdHocCommittee #PKTT @ParliamentofRSA ⁦@NPA_Prosecutes⁩ pic.twitter.com/s63HzZllzv

Justice-and-security-Cluster (@JustSecuCluster) January 20, 2026

The Sibiya backstory

McBride added further context, telling MPs that Sibiya’s problems escalated after he arrested former Crime Intelligence head Richard Mdhluli a move that, in policing circles, was widely seen as politically explosive.

In McBride’s version of events, Sibiya was collateral damage in a broader effort to remove Dramat from his position, with internal power struggles shaping the outcome more than evidence.

Why Phahlane was investigated

The committee also probed McBride on the controversial investigation into former acting national police commissioner Khomotso Phahlane, who has claimed he was targeted through a coordinated effort involving McBride and private investigator Paul O’Sullivan.

McBride rejected that narrative.

He told MPs that Ipid’s investigation into Phahlane stemmed from multiple complaints, including the procurement of defective investigative equipment worth R54 million that was allegedly paid for but never delivered.

Ipid also examined claims that Phahlane was living in a R8 million home beyond his apparent means, as well as allegations of kickbacks from service providers.

Cars, cash and unanswered questions

Another red flag, McBride said, involved luxury vehicles linked to Phahlane that were not disclosed in a gift register.

While Phahlane has said he was simply trading cars, McBride told the committee the concern lay in the unusually high values involved.

“In our view, gratification is linked to the cars that were donated or ‘bought’ and how they are disposed of,” he said.

Search warrant and whistleblowers

McBride also defended the January 2017 search of Phahlane’s home, which related to allegations that a service provider installed a surround sound system at the residence.

Although Phahlane later repaid the money, McBride argued that repayment did not erase the alleged offence.

“It’s like taking money out of the till and putting it back later,” he said.

He added that Phahlane had challenged the legality of the search warrant in court, but later withdrew the application.

Addressing questions about O’Sullivan’s apparent insight into Ipid investigations, McBride said whistleblowers were the source.

“That’s why he knew so much,” he told MPs.

A deeper problem: who oversees the watchdog?

Beyond individual cases, McBride used his testimony to return to a long-standing concern: Ipid’s lack of independence.

He argued that as long as Ipid reports to the minister of police who is also the political head of SAPS a built-in conflict of interest remains.

“That has been our experience at various stages,” he said, warning that ministers can influence investigations into police leadership.

For McBride, the solution is structural reform.

“If it’s not independent,” he told the committee, “it’s just another form of control.”

Public reaction and a familiar frustration

On social media, McBride’s testimony reignited public frustration over police accountability, with many South Africans saying the same names and scandals seem to resurface year after year.

For critics, the hearings are less about settling old scores and more about a system that still struggles to police itself.

McBride’s message to Parliament was blunt: without real independence for the police watchdog, the cycle of allegations, suspensions and court battles is likely to continue no matter who occupies the top jobs.