Adv Chaskalson makes Joe Sibanyoni CRY while pressed about protection fee & extortion.
Explosive Commission Standoff over Muloto Road Quarry Project Exposes Secret Profit Splits and Extortion Allegations
A tense and heated exchange erupted during the commission inquiry as Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni faced intense questioning regarding severe financial extortion allegations and a controversial profit-sharing scheme tied to the Muloto Road construction project in Kwaggafontein.
The proceedings took a dramatic turn when Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni was confronted with sworn testimony from Dr. Tangani, also referred to as Dr. Ndou, who claimed he was forced to pay a massive protection fee to operate in the region.
According to a sworn statement read into the record by evidence leader Mr. Chaskalson, Dr. Tangani detailed his initial July 2021 meeting with Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni and Bafana Kabini.
Dr. Tangani alleged that he was explicitly told that in order to operate his mining business in Kwaggafontein, he had to pay a protection fee because Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni and his associates were the custodians looking after all the land in the area.
In his official statement, Dr. Tangani asserted that Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni promised no one would touch his business operations as long as the protection money was delivered.
Furthermore, Dr. Tangani alleged that Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni demanded an immediate upfront cash payment of 100,000 rand before opening further channels of communication.
When Mr. Chaskalson asked Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni to respond to these specific allegations, Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni immediately attempted to evade the line of questioning by invoking his privilege against self-incrimination.
Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni repeatedly asked the panel if he could raise his right to remain silent to avoid incriminating himself in relation to ongoing criminal charges in Delmas.
However, the evidence leaders and the Commission Chair quickly pointed out a fatal logical flaw in Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni‘s legal maneuver.
The Commission highlighted paragraph 78 of Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni‘s own sworn affidavit on page 30, in which he had previously declared under oath that he had never directed, financed, commissioned, or participated in any unlawful activity.
Mr. Chaskalson pressed Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni, explaining that if his sworn statement was entirely true and he had committed no crimes, answering the questions truthfully could not possibly incriminate him.
The Commission Chair firmly reminded Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni that he could not simultaneously maintain he was completely innocent while asserting a privilege against self-incrimination, unless he was willing to formally withdraw his previous sworn denial.
The Chair stressed that witnesses cannot claim a blanket cover of protection and must assert privilege strictly on a question-by-question basis while demonstrating genuine exposure to self-incrimination.
Facing an impending ruling by the Chair to overrule his assertion of privilege, Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni ultimately chose to maintain his sworn statement in paragraph 78.
Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni explicitly re-read his affidavit into the record, stating that he emphatically and absolutely denied ever being a member of any criminal organization, cartel, syndicate, or grouping.
Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni maintained that he intended to fully contest his criminal charges in court rather than before the commission.
Once compelled to answer the allegations directly, Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni issued a flat denial regarding the financial extortion claims made by Dr. Tangani.
Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni stated that it was completely untrue that he ever demanded a protection fee or demanded an upfront cash sum of 100,000 rand from Dr. Tangani.
The inquiry then shifted to paragraph six of Dr. Tangani‘s statement, which outlined a proposed financial split where 40 percent of the venture profits would go to Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni and Bafana Kabini as a local protection fee structure, while 60 percent remained with the mining company.
When asked if he had ever proposed a 40-60 financial split, Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni admitted that he did discuss those exact numbers, but vehemently rejected the characterization of the funds as a protection fee.
Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni asserted that the arrangement was strictly a legitimate business agreement representing a 60-40 profit-sharing arrangement for supplying aggregate stone for phase one of the Muloto Road construction project.
A lengthy and convoluted debate ensued regarding how this profit split was structured alongside local content requirements.
Initially, Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni attempted to explain that the 60-40 split applied to a 30 percent local content quota that was carved out from the larger main contract.
Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni stumbled through a mathematical explanation, attempting to argue that the 30 percent local share was treated as a standalone 100 percent entity, which was then subdivided into a 60-40 profit split between Dr. Tangani and himself.
The Commission Chair and panel expressed extreme skepticism over this mathematical explanation, noting that the numbers failed to align logically with the overarching 30 percent local content rule Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni had testified to earlier in the morning.
The Chair pointed out that if Dr. Tangani‘s quarry operation was the entity providing aggregate stone for the project, taking 40 percent of those profits no longer reflected a standard 30 percent local participation rule.
Legal counsel Mr. Goba stepped in to clarify Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni‘s position, asserting that Dr. Tangani was initially unable to perform business or qualify as a supplier to the main contractor in Kwaggafontein without local partnership.
Mr. Goba argued that Dr. Tangani actively approached Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni seeking a local partnership to fulfill the local content threshold necessary to secure the supply contract.
The Chair challenged this framing, emphasizing that the entity supplying aggregate stone held 100 percent of that specific supply sub-contract in its hands, making additional sub-divisions of percentages mathematically contradictory to earlier testimony.
When asked by the Chair to clarify the mechanics of the venture, Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni conceded that there was no formal shareholding in Tangani Mining, nor was there any written contract or formal documentation governing the deal.
Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni confirmed that the entire multi-million rand financial arrangement was established purely on an informal verbal handshake between Dr. Tangani and himself.
Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni defended his entitlement to 40 percent of the profits by stating that Dr. Tangani could never have operated or supplied aggregate stone from the quarry without his direct personal involvement in the area.
Under further questioning from the panel, Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni clarified that local business operators had grouped together to form the overall 30 percent local participation required by the main contractor.
Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni explained that while other local entities supplied trucks, labor, and additional resources to fulfill the overall local requirement, his specific role was partnering with Dr. Tangani on the quarry supply operation.
Joseph Bafana Sibanyoni ultimately acknowledged that he was acting as a direct business partner in the core quarry supply operation, claiming that this operational partnership is what legitimately entitled him to a 40 percent share of the profits.
Copyright: Daily Updates ZA
