- Affidavit challenges suspension process, citing breaches of SAPS regulations and constitutional safeguards.
- Case raises tension between executive discretion and statutory compliance within SAPS governance.
- Outcome could shape institutional accountability and future of political killings investigations.
In the corridors of power where law enforcement and politics intersect, a storm is brewing. Lieutenant-General Shadrack Sibiya, a senior figure in the South African Police Service (SAPS), has taken the unprecedented step of challenging his suspension in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria.
His replying affidavit, filed under Case No. 2025-123874, is not merely a defence; it is an indictment of systemic dysfunction, procedural abuse, and the erosion of constitutional safeguards within SAPS.
The controversy stems from the disbandment of the National Task Team on Political Killings, a unit tasked with investigating politically motivated murders. On 31 December 2024, the Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu, issued a directive to dissolve the unit, citing concerns about its effectiveness and alleged misconduct.
Sibiya, then Deputy National Commissioner for Crime Detection, claims he acted in accordance with instructions from General Fannie Masemola, the National Police Commissioner, who was executing the minister’s directive.
Yet, SAPS KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi publicly accused Sibiya of obstructing justice and interfering with politically sensitive investigations. These allegations, made during a televised media briefing, triggered Sibiya’s suspension, an act he now describes as unlawful, retaliatory and procedurally defective.
The legal anatomy of a suspension
Sibiya’s affidavit meticulously dissects the procedural flaws underpinning his removal. He argues that his suspension was not preceded by a formal precautionary process as required under Regulation 10(1) of the SAPS Discipline Regulations. Instead, he was issued a vague “stay-at-home” directive without being afforded the opportunity to make representations, a fundamental right under both the SAPS regulatory framework and principles of administrative justice.
More damning is Masemola’s admission that he personally initiated the investigation into Sibiya’s conduct. This, Sibiya contends, violates Regulation 6, which stipulates that only a designated Disciplinary Officer may initiate such proceedings. By acting as complainant, investigator, and decision-maker, Masemola is accused of collapsing the procedural firewall designed to ensure impartiality and fairness.
Sibiya further highlights the inconsistent treatment he received compared to other senior SAPS officials. While others were afforded the opportunity to respond to allegations before being removed from duty, he was summarily sidelined. This, he argues, reflects a pattern of scapegoating and selective enforcement that undermines institutional integrity.
Constitutional authority or procedural overreach?
Masemola’s defence hinges on Section 207 of the Constitution, which empowers the National Commissioner to manage SAPS in accordance with national policy. However, Sibiya counters that this provision does not override statutory obligations under the SAPS Act and Discipline Regulations. He argues that Masemola’s reliance on constitutional authority is a flawed attempt to circumvent established legal frameworks, a move that threatens to erode the principle of subsidiarity and the rule of law.
Initially, the suspension was linked to Mkhwanazi’s media briefing. However, Masemola later introduced new allegations of insubordination, claiming that Sibiya failed to follow phased-out instructions regarding the disbandment. Sibiya refutes these claims, citing documented communications and directives that show he acted under Masemola’s guidance and in full compliance with the chain of command.
The affidavit includes annexures such as internal SAPS correspondence, WhatsApp messages, and media reports, which support Sibiya’s assertion that the disbandment was centrally coordinated and not a unilateral act. These documents paint a picture of a senior officer caught in the crossfire of institutional politics and executive deflection.
Security withdrawal and the commission of inquiry
Following his suspension, Sibiya alleges that his security detail was withdrawn, leaving him exposed to threats. Protection was only reinstated after legal proceedings commenced, an act he views as retaliatory and emblematic of the broader institutional hostility he faces.
Sibiya is also seeking an interim interdict to prevent SAPS from initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings that could obstruct the work of the Commission of Inquiry into political killings. He argues that Masemola’s actions risk undermining the Commission’s mandate and preempting its findings, thereby compromising the pursuit of justice in politically sensitive cases.
Relief sought and the road ahead
In his affidavit, Sibiya asks the court to declare the suspension and investigation unlawful, to set aside all decisions taken by Masemola in this regard, and to prohibit SAPS from initiating any disciplinary proceedings that overlap with the commission’s mandate. He also requests condonation for the late filing of his affidavit, citing delays in receiving the respondents’ answering papers and missing annexures.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
