Sibiya’s motives behind NDPP correspondence questioned by NPA in bail application

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has challenged the purpose of correspondence between suspended Deputy National Police Commissioner General Shadrack Sibiya’s legal team and the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), arguing that the engagement was aimed at preventing his arrest.

Sibiya’s lawyer, Advocate Rashaad Moosa, disputes the State’s interpretation, saying the purpose of the engagement was to facilitate his client’s formal cooperation with authorities. The dispute emerged during the State’s cross-examination of Moosa in Sibiya’s bail application at the Randburg Magistrates’ Court on Thursday.

The State argued that Moosa had acknowledged that the correspondence with the NDPP was intended to prevent Sibiya’s arrest.

Moosa disagreed. The defence has maintained that the legal team was seeking clarity on whether criminal investigations or charges would arise from processes linked to the Ad Hoc process and the Madlanga Commission.

The prosecution questioned whether Sibiya’s legal team wanted to be informed about any other charges that could potentially be brought against him. The State also suggested that the defence wanted information relating to allegations against Sibiya to be shared with them.

Moosa said the State was attempting to conflate separate queries.

State disagres with his characterisation

The prosecution then questioned Moosa about what the implications would be if details of charges still under investigation were disclosed. Moosa maintained that the purpose of the engagement was to facilitate formal cooperation.

The State also put it to Moosa that the correspondence with the NDPP was intended to circumvent Sibiya’s arrest. Moosa rejected this. He pointed out to the court that an arrest warrant had already been issued.

The State argued that the actions being described by Moosa would be contrary to the provisions of the law. Moosa contested this.

ALSO READ: Sibiya to stay behind bars after bail hearing is postponed

Moosa earlier explained that his mandate had initially been to deal with Sibiya’s disciplinary matter. He said there was an overlap between the disciplinary and criminal processes, meaning the legal team subsequently had to deal with the criminal matter as well.

Moosa said the legal team was seeking to establish whether any criminal investigation would arise from the Ad Hoc process and the Madlanga Commission. The defence has also argued that the NPA and the South African Police Service (SAPS) have separate functions.

Moosa said there was nothing improper about Sibiya’s legal team engaging with the NDPP. Sibiya’s lawyers accused the State of “fishing” with its line of questioning. Magistrate Hleziphi Mkhasibe allowed the state to continue probing the consultations between Sibiya and his legal representatives.

Sibiya served with third disciplinary notice

Earlier, the court heard that Sibiya had been served with another SAPS disciplinary notice while in the holding cells – the third to be served on Sibiya. Moosa told the court that his client had been served with an expedited notice for a SAPS disciplinary process, with the latest notice being served at Sibiya’s last appearance.

The most recent notice is pending the outcome of his ongoing criminal case and currently does not have a specified date, according to the defence. The details surrounding the first two disciplinary notices were not fully canvassed in court. Sibiya’s legal team also revealed that a separate case number had been registered in connection with a firearm allegedly seized on the day of his arrest.

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

Moosa said the matter relates to the storage of the firearm. The defence said it was aware of the firearm-related allegations but argued that the charge should have been included with the original charges rather than being served separately. The firearm matter is separate from the five charges Sibiya is currently facing in the bail application. These include rape, trafficking in persons and sexual grooming-related offences.

The proceedings were briefly interrupted on Thursday morning after the court experienced a technical problem with its recording equipment. The court adjourned to allow the issue to be addressed before proceedings could continue.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter