Setumo Stone | How Sibiya’s affidavit puts ‘Mr M’ at the heart of the state’s case

A new version of events before the Randburg Regional Court has shifted the centre of the case against suspended deputy national police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya from the five charges on the charge sheet to one man identified only as “Mr M”.

The charge sheet presents two sets of allegations: three counts of alleged sexual grooming of a 16-year-old girl, plus trafficking and rape charges involving adult women at the Garden Court Hotel and The Grand in Sandton.

Sibiya’s bail affidavit changes that picture by connecting the two strands through Mr M, whom he says is both the teenage complainant’s father and the man who arranged the hotel and transport.

The state gains a connecting witness. Sibiya gains an alternative explanation for how he met the complainants. What is lost is the separation between the child-grooming allegations and the adult complainants’ case. The contradiction sits in who did what, when and why.

That shift is significant for the case’s future shape.

Mr M links the two strands

The charge sheet says the teenager’s father, who worked as Sibiya’s bodyguard, gave Sibiya her contact details.

Sibiya accepts that sequence. He says Mr M asked him to collect his daughter from Centurion and gave him her number.

The versions split over sexually explicit material.

The charge sheet alleges Sibiya persuaded the girl to masturbate on video and send it to him. It also alleges he sent her nude pictures of herself that she had not supplied to him.

Sibiya says Mr M told him he had received a masturbation video of his daughter from an undisclosed source and forwarded it to him.

He says he later contacted the girl and forwarded the video to her at her request. He claims she then sent him similar material for him to investigate.

That explanation drew a question from the magistrate: why, if Mr M was with Sibiya, did he need to forward the video rather than simply show it to him?

After taking instructions, Sibiya’s lawyer said his client could not explain why Mr M had sent it.

Digital evidence may become crucial in establishing who first sent the files and when.

Rape allegation sharply contested

The affidavit produces a direct collision on the rape allegation.

The state alleges Sibiya took people known only as BQ, NM and MC to The Grand, supplied them with alcohol there and continued supplying alcohol at Garden Court. It alleges MC later passed out and was raped while unconscious.

Sibiya does not deny having intercourse with MC. He says, however, it was consensual.

He says he first arrived at Garden Court on Friday night after Mr M invited him and found the three women already there and “highly intoxicated”. He says he stayed about 30 minutes and left.

He says he returned the following evening. The women did not want more alcohol because they had been intoxicated the previous night. He says they later returned to Garden Court; Mr M and the other women left the room, and he and MC had consensual intercourse.

That narrows the dispute to consent, MC’s state of consciousness, who supplied the alcohol and what the records show.

The trafficking charge is contested.

The state alleges Sibiya delivered, recruited or transported the women for sexual exploitation. Sibiya says they arrived at Garden Court on their own and that he “did not transport anybody”.

Date correction and remaining questions

The chronology has shifted.

The state corrected its charge sheet in court after acknowledging that a reference to July 16 should have been May 16. The defence did not object.

But Sibiya says the arrest warrant referred to alleged rape, sexual assault and trafficking committed “on or about 15 May 2026”. His affidavit describes encounters over a Friday and Saturday, while the formal counts place the trafficking and rape on May 16.

The case contains a more detailed factual contest than the charge sheet alone suggested.

At its centre is Mr M.

If Sibiya’s account is correct, he links the initial contact with the teenager, the disputed video, the Garden Court meeting and the adult complainants.

If the State disputes that account, investigators will have to show what the electronic trail, witness statements, hotel records and vehicle movements establish.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Sibiya’s bail affidavit changes that picture by connecting the two strands through Mr M, whom he says is both the teenage complainant’s father and the man who arranged the hotel and transport.

That shift is significant for the case’s future shape.

Mr M links the two strands

The charge sheet says the teenager’s father, who worked as Sibiya’s bodyguard, gave Sibiya her contact details.

Sibiya accepts that sequence. He says Mr M asked him to collect his daughter from Centurion and gave him her number.

The versions split over sexually explicit material.

The charge sheet alleges Sibiya persuaded the girl to masturbate on video and send it to him. It also alleges he sent her nude pictures of herself that she had not supplied to him.

Sibiya says Mr M told him he had received a masturbation video of his daughter from an undisclosed source and forwarded it to him.

He says he later contacted the girl and forwarded the video to her at her request. He claims she then sent him similar material for him to investigate.

That explanation drew a question from the magistrate: why, if Mr M was with Sibiya, did he need to forward the video rather than simply show it to him?

After taking instructions, Sibiya’s lawyer said his client could not explain why Mr M had sent it.

Digital evidence may become crucial in establishing who first sent the files and when.

Rape allegation sharply contested

The affidavit produces a direct collision on the rape allegation.

Sibiya does not deny having intercourse with MC. He says, however, it was consensual.

He says he first arrived at Garden Court on Friday night after Mr M invited him and found the three women already there and “highly intoxicated”. He says he stayed about 30 minutes and left.

That narrows the dispute to consent, MC’s state of consciousness, who supplied the alcohol and what the records show.

The trafficking charge is contested.

The state alleges Sibiya delivered, recruited or transported the women for sexual exploitation. Sibiya says they arrived at Garden Court on their own and that he “did not transport anybody”.

Date correction and remaining questions

The chronology has shifted.

The state corrected its charge sheet in court after acknowledging that a reference to July 16 should have been May 16. The defence did not object.

The case contains a more detailed factual contest than the charge sheet alone suggested.

At its centre is Mr M.

If Sibiya’s account is correct, he links the initial contact with the teenager, the disputed video, the Garden Court meeting and the adult complainants.

If the State disputes that account, investigators will have to show what the electronic trail, witness statements, hotel records and vehicle movements establish.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Setumo Stone | How Sibiya’s affidavit puts ‘Mr M’ at the heart of the state’s case

Mr M links the two strands

Rape allegation sharply contested

Date correction and remaining questions

Follow the story

About this article

Setumo Stone | How Sibiya’s affidavit puts ‘Mr M’ at the heart of the state’s case

Mr M links the two strands

Rape allegation sharply contested

Date correction and remaining questions

Follow the story

About this article