Inside the SAPS Power Struggle: Shadrack Sibiya, Internal Tensions, and the Explosive Allegations Before the Madlanga Commission

In late 2024, journalists at Eyewitness News began receiving information suggesting deep tensions within the upper ranks of the South African Police Service (SAPS).

At the center of the unfolding storm were two of the organization’s most senior officials: Lieutenant General Shadrack Sibiya, Deputy National Commissioner responsible for Crime Detection, and Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, a powerful provincial police commissioner.

 

What initially appeared to be whispers of internal friction soon evolved into a broader inquiry into whether these tensions reflected deeper institutional fractures.

Rumors pointed to a breakdown in trust between the two generals, raising questions about leadership cohesion at a time when SAPS was already under intense public scrutiny.

 

Determined to separate speculation from fact, Eyewitness News sought direct engagement with both men.

In early 2025, journalists sat down separately with Sibiya and Mkhwanazi.

The meeting with Sibiya took place in Pretoria, where he addressed allegations about his relationship with Mkhwanazi and, unexpectedly, claims linking him to elements of the criminal underworld.

 

From the outset, Sibiya acknowledged that disagreements had occurred but downplayed their severity.

He emphasized his duty as a disciplined SAPS member to protect the integrity of the institution.

According to him, any disagreements between himself and Mkhwanazi were minor, professional disputes that had been resolved.

He framed the tension as an unfortunate misunderstanding stemming from communication protocol.

The incident, he explained, occurred when he contacted a deputy provincial commissioner instead of the provincial commissioner directly regarding a ministerial meeting.

Mkhwanazi, he said, took offense at being bypassed.

Sibiya insisted that in operational contexts, contacting deputies was common practice, particularly when urgent arrangements were needed.

 

He described the disagreement as brief and resolved through discussion and apology.

In his words, it was “a minor disagreement that came and went.

” More importantly, he stressed that it was embarrassing for senior leaders to appear divided while criminals continued to operate.

“We should be facing criminals together, fighting side by side, rather than facing each other,” he said.

 

Yet developments before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry and the ADO Committee painted a more complex picture.

Mkhwanazi, who was among the first witnesses before the Commission, suggested that internal divisions ran deeper than acknowledged.

Evidence presented in hearings implied that the fallout between the two generals had not been as trivial as Sibiya suggested.

 

While the interpersonal conflict was significant, it was not the most consequential aspect of the interview.

The most striking revelation emerged when Sibiya began discussing alleged attempts to link him to underworld figures, particularly alleged criminal kingpin Vusi “Cat” Matlala, a figure associated with kidnapping networks and broader organized crime allegations.

What made this portion of the interview especially noteworthy was that Sibiya raised the topic himself.

Journalists had not initially questioned him about Matlala or other alleged criminal actors.

Nevertheless, he proactively addressed rumors that police investigators were attempting to associate him with Matlala.

 

During the March 2025 interview, Sibiya firmly denied knowing or meeting Matlala.

He insisted he had never had any relationship with him and dismissed allegations as part of a broader effort to destabilize SAPS leadership.

He described a climate of rumor-mongering, where individuals allegedly told him that Mkhwanazi was planning to have him arrested, while simultaneously telling Mkhwanazi that Sibiya was responsible for misconduct.

 

Sibiya portrayed himself as the target of orchestrated attempts to sow division.

He argued that unnamed forces were trying to pit senior officials against one another to weaken the institution from within.

 

However, subsequent proceedings before the Madlanga Commission introduced a critical contradiction.

Evidence suggested that Sibiya had, in fact, met Matlala on multiple occasions — reportedly at least five times.

The first of these meetings allegedly occurred in February 2025, just one month before Sibiya’s interview with Eyewitness News.

This discrepancy raised serious questions about credibility.

If Sibiya had met Matlala, why did he categorically deny knowing him during the earlier interview? The contradiction became a central issue in the Commission’s investigation.

 

Sibiya continued to defend himself publicly.

He stated that any investigation into him would yield nothing incriminating.

He asserted that if wrongdoing existed, authorities were empowered to act decisively.

“I sleep at night,” he said, emphasizing that he had done nothing wrong.

 

He also addressed allegations that he was connected to other controversial figures, including individuals linked to private security operations and anti-kidnapping task teams.

He denied any improper associations and dismissed claims that he had influenced investigations involving Mkhwanazi or others.

 

At one point, he referenced the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), asserting that he had never approached IPID in connection with the 2023 case under discussion.

He maintained that no evidence tied him to criminal conduct.

Throughout the interview, Sibiya repeated a consistent message: he had nothing to hide.

He claimed that crime intelligence officers were constantly monitoring him and that he frequently received information suggesting raids were imminent.

He described being surrounded by intelligence personnel who reported plans to search his home and seize digital devices.

 

Rather than express fear, Sibiya adopted a defiant posture.

He welcomed any search, insisting that investigators would find no illicit goods, no unlicensed weapons, and no hidden money.

“They can come,” he said.

“They will find nothing in my house.”

In retrospect, his comments appear prescient.

In the months that followed, a series of high-profile raids unfolded involving senior SAPS officials and political figures.

Among those affected were suspended Police Minister Bheki Cele’s successor Senzo Mchunu and senior Hawks officials.

The atmosphere within SAPS became increasingly charged.

By the time Sibiya was scheduled to testify before the Madlanga Commission, the situation had intensified.

He was no longer merely defending himself against rumors; he was confronting allegations supported by documentary and testimonial evidence presented before the Commission.

 

The Commission’s inquiry expanded beyond internal SAPS disputes to examine alleged links between senior police officials and organized crime networks.

Names such as Steven Mzumi and individuals associated with the so-called “Big Five” cartel surfaced in testimony.

One alleged cartel leader, Jotham Muis, had reportedly died in January 2024, but his name continued to appear in discussions of underworld networks.

For Sibiya, the implications were serious.

The narrative had shifted from minor internal disagreements to questions about possible underworld connections and integrity at the highest levels of law enforcement.

 

Observers noted that Sibiya appeared increasingly cornered as evidence accumulated.

While he remained adamant that he was innocent, the contradiction between his initial denial of meeting Matlala and later confirmations of multiple meetings created reputational damage.

The stakes extended beyond personal credibility.

SAPS, already grappling with public distrust, faced renewed scrutiny over leadership accountability.

If senior officials were found to have undisclosed relationships with alleged criminal figures, the institutional fallout could be profound.

As Sibiya prepared to testify before the Commission over several days — potentially up to five — anticipation grew.

Analysts predicted that his testimony would be explosive, not only because of the allegations themselves but because it would test the coherence of his previous statements.

 

The broader context cannot be ignored.

South Africa’s struggle against organized crime and corruption has repeatedly intersected with concerns about infiltration of state institutions.

The Madlanga Commission represents an effort to confront these challenges transparently.

 

Sibiya’s defense rests on two pillars: denial of wrongdoing and assertion of a coordinated campaign to destabilize police leadership.

Whether these claims withstand cross-examination remains to be seen.

 

What is clear is that what began as rumors of tension between two senior officers evolved into a high-stakes inquiry into integrity, power, and accountability within SAPS.

The coming testimony will not only determine Sibiya’s personal standing but may also shape the future direction of South Africa’s law enforcement leadership.