Imminent Arrest, Deepening Suspicion, and a Police Force Under Strain: What Parliament Heard About General Shadrack Sibiya
The atmosphere surrounding South Africa’s policing leadership has grown increasingly tense, and yesterday’s appearance before Parliament’s ad hoc committee pushed that tension to a new level.

What emerged was not a single dramatic announcement, but a layered and unsettling picture of distrust, unfinished investigations, and a senior police figure edging closer to possible arrest.

At the center of it all stands General Shadrack Sibiya, a name that has become synonymous with controversy, unanswered questions, and institutional unease within the South African Police Service.

During the committee proceedings, Lieutenant General Kumalo made a disclosure that instantly captured national attention.

He confirmed that the arrest of General Sibiya is not a distant or hypothetical possibility, but an imminent one.

Investigations are underway, multiple avenues are being pursued, and the only reason an arrest has not yet taken place is procedural rather than protective.

According to Kumalo, the investigative approach adopted by the Political Killings Task Team is clear and uncompromising: investigations must be fully conducted and concluded before any arrest is made.

Arrest first, investigate later, he stressed, is precisely the kind of conduct the SAPS is trying to move away from.

This explanation was offered in response to a direct and pressing question from committee members: if Kumalo has publicly stated that he has no trust whatsoever in General Sibiya, why has he not already acted to have him arrested? Kumalo’s answer was careful but firm.

Trust, or the lack of it, does not replace evidence.

The rule of law demands that investigations be completed, findings consolidated, and only then should arrests follow.

Anything else would undermine the very integrity the task team claims to be restoring.

Yet the most explosive moment of the session was not about process, but about trust.

Kumalo openly admitted that he has no trust at all in General Sibiya.

Coming from one of the most senior figures in the SAPS, directed at another senior officer, this was nothing short of extraordinary.

It is rare for such blunt statements to be made in public, and rarer still in the formal setting of a parliamentary committee.

The implication was unmistakable: the fracture within the upper ranks of the police is no longer hidden, and it is now playing out in full view of the nation.

This admission did not arise in a vacuum.

Kumalo is already on record as having described Sibiya as a criminal, stating unequivocally that no police officer can work with a criminal and still claim to serve justice.

Such statements have ensured that Sibiya remains a focal point of public scrutiny, particularly given the long list of controversies that seem to follow him wherever he goes.

One of the most persistent and damaging clouds hanging over Sibiya relates to the investigation into the murdєr of Senzo Meyiwa.

Sibiya has consistently denied any involvement in that investigation, insisting that he was never formally part of it.

He points out that his name does not appear on official records, that he never gave a formal statement, and that he was never called as a witness.

Yet despite these denials, his presence has repeatedly surfaced at critical moments in the case, often in ways that appear to have hindered rather than helped the pursuit of truth.

It is a matter of record that General Sibiya was among the first people to arrive at the Kumalo household on the day Senzo Meyiwa was killed.

Sibiya disputes this, claiming he arrived much later like many others who had heard the tragic news.

However, testimony presented in court has complicated this version of events.

Constable Zungu, himself a controversial state witness in the Meyiwa trial, testified in the Pretoria High Court that in 2019 he met with General Sibiya and General Shabani regarding the investigation into Meyiwa’s death.

According to Zungu, the meeting focused on logistics and strategies aimed at finally cracking the case.

What makes this testimony particularly troubling is the timeline.

General Sibiya was dismissed from the SAPS in 2015 and only reinstated in 2022.

In 2019, when this alleged meeting took place, he was not a serving police officer.

He was a civilian.

The question that continues to baffle observers is simple but profound: how could a civilian have been involved in an active police investigation, particularly one of such national importance? What authority did he have, and who allowed him access?
This anomaly feeds into a broader pattern of concern.

Sibiya’s name has surfaced repeatedly in contexts where his official status does not appear to justify his level of involvement.

He has been linked to figures such as Paul O’Sullivan, a civilian and well-known but highly controversial activist in South African public life.

O’Sullivan reportedly played a role in appointing or influencing appointments within investigative structures, including matters connected to Brigadier Gininda.

It is alleged that Sibiya facilitated or issued letters related to Gininda’s promotion, further entangling himself in disputes over legitimacy and authority.

The relationship between Sibiya and O’Sullivan has attracted renewed scrutiny, particularly after it emerged that O’Sullivan is currently outside the country, reportedly in London.

His absence has already caused friction with Parliament’s ad hoc committee, which has rejected his request to appear virtually.

The committee has made it clear that no special treatment will be granted and that physical presence is required.

This insistence underscores the seriousness with which the committee is approaching the matter and its determination to avoid any perception of preferential handling.

Against this backdrop, the revelations from Lieutenant General Kumalo take on even greater weight.

His confirmation that multiple investigations are targeting Sibiya suggests that the scrutiny is not limited to one issue or one case.

Rather, it points to a cumulative assessment of conduct spanning years, roles, and controversies.

The fact that Kumalo openly stated his lack of trust while simultaneously emphasizing adherence to due process reflects a tension at the heart of the SAPS: the urgent need for accountability balanced against the legal necessity of thorough investigation.

It is also not the first time Sibiya has found himself on the outside of the SAPS looking in.

His dismissal in 2015 marked an earlier rupture in his career, followed by reinstatement in 2022.

Now, by 2025, he is once again suspended and under investigation.

This cyclical pattern raises uncomfortable questions about vetting, reinstatement, and institutional memory within the police service.

How does a figure exit under a cloud, return, and then re-emerge in controversy yet again?
For many South Africans, the issue extends beyond the fate of one individual.

What Parliament heard yesterday speaks to a deeper crisis of credibility within law enforcement.

When senior generals publicly declare that they do not trust one another, when investigations into politically sensitive murdєrs appear to be compromised, and when civilians seemingly wield influence over police operations, public confidence erodes rapidly.

General Sibiya’s future now hangs in the balance.

Will the investigations currently underway yield sufficient evidence to justify his arrest? If so, what charges will follow, and how far back will accountability reach? Or will procedural delays and institutional inertia once again allow controversy to fade without consequence?
What is clear is that something is brewing.

The tone of Kumalo’s testimony, the firmness of Parliament’s stance, and the accumulation of unresolved questions suggest that this chapter is far from over.

For now, the country watches as the legal machinery turns, slowly but deliberately, toward a moment that could redefine not only one man’s career, but the credibility of South Africa’s policing institutions themselves.