BREAKING | JOE “FERRARI” SIBANYONI INVOKES RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION OVER KWAGGAFONTEIN CASE
Public Taps and Private Murders Exposed in Dramatic Bus Blockade Inquest
A high-stakes judicial commission of inquiry plunged into complete chaos after witness testimony unveiled a dark web of alleged extrajudicial killings, illegally seized phone records, and corporate warfare in the transit sector.
Taking the stand to address a wave of evidence logs labeled CJC 468 and CJC 472 through 476, Mr. Spuni delivered a series of explosive declarations under oath.
Mr. Spuni formally addressed exhibit CJC 468, acknowledging the existence of a photograph placed before the panel that confirms his simultaneous presence with Mr. Bafana Sindani and Mr. Mashele.
He testified that his presence at the gathering was purely in his capacity as a taxi industry leader attending official meetings to resolve pressing sector issues.
The room grew tense as the panel turned its attention to video evidence of bus blockades captured in exhibits CJC 472 and CJC 473.
Mr. Spuni forcefully called for a rigorous forensic investigation into the origin and true cause of the bus burnings, urging the commission not to accept assumed narratives.
He dropped a bombshell in the hearing room, declaring it common knowledge that individuals who organized strikes against Putco inevitably ended up dead.
Mr. Spuni specifically named the late Mr. Caesar and Dr. Mkhize as prominent individuals who met tragic fates after organizing labor actions against the bus company.
He further recounted a horrific incident where passengers were burned to death inside a Putco bus without receiving any compensation or law enforcement action.
Mr. Spuni testified that he personally confronted Franco Pisapia, the owner of Putco, on multiple occasions to demand an immediate end to the violence and safeguard human lives.
He noted that Mr. Caesar, also known as Mr. Pom Caesar from the KwaMhlanga section, was among those who lost their lives after leading labor demonstrations against Putco.
Addressing additional items labeled CJC 474 to 476, Mr. Spuni argued that the broader Putco matters fell outside the scope of his original regulation 10.6 notice and could not form the basis of adverse findings against him.
The testimony then shifted into corporate ties involving Edwin Construction and Tshamphani Mining alongside his WhatsApp exchanges with Mr. Thomas Nduli.
Mr. Spuni confirmed that the commission’s evidence bundle included docket CJC 477, a active criminal case involving Edwin Construction and a complainant named Mr. Thomas Nduli.
He revealed that he was unlawfully arrested on May 11, 2026, and subsequently released after posting 70,000 rand bail.
Mr. Spuni named his co-accused in the pending criminal proceedings as Mr. Mbedzi, Mr. Bafana Sindani, and Mr. Mashele.
He firmly challenged the commission’s authority to re-investigate a matter already before a criminal court under case number 298/2026, arguing that introducing an active docket violated his constitutional right to a fair trial.
Because the state charged all four men under the legal doctrine of common purpose, Mr. Spuni asserted that compelling his testimony created a direct legal nexus that could incriminate Mr. Mbedzi, Mr. Bafana Sindani, and Mr. Mashele.
He invoked his constitutional protections under Section 35.3.J and Section 35.3.H to refuse answering questions that could compromise his pending trial or that of his co-accused.
Mr. Spuni then launched a scathing attack on how state investigators obtained his private mobile phone records.
He testified that police seized his cellular device during the KwaMhlanga extortion investigation, downloaded its entire directory, and performed digital forensic analysis exclusively for criminal case number 298/2026.
Mr. Spuni revealed that those private contacts were surreptitiously transferred directly into the commission’s evidence bundle without legal authorization or a valid Section 212 certificate under the Criminal Procedure Act.
He condemned the National Prosecuting Authority for failing to disclose the transfer of his seized device data to the commission.
Mr. Spuni exposed that the National Prosecuting Authority had promised to take his device to the South African Banking Risk Information Centre for analysis and provide feedback, a promise they never fulfilled.
He formally objected to the commission using his unconstitutionally seized phone data, asserting his Section 14 privacy rights and threatening an urgent high court application to halt the proceedings.
Mr. Spuni also protested against the public display of his private device data in proceedings conducted in his absence, demanding a complete freeze on the evidence.
During his appearance, Mr. Spuni paused to correct the official transcript record, clarifying that references to Section 35.3.H should be recorded as Section 35.3.J.
Addressing evidence regarding an inquiry about the term “ingabi”, Mr. Spuni categorically denied ever employing, commissioning, or supporting contract killers or taxi violence.
He explained under oath that in the taxi sector, leaders frequently hear terms and inquire about potential security threats to protect their members.
Mr. Spuni clarified that his single exchange with Mr. Bafana Sindani regarding “ingabi” yielded no information and went no further.
Mr. Musigi intervened during the reading of the supplementary statement, suggesting that formal legal reservations of rights in section O be skipped so the witness could proceed directly to paragraph 141.
Mr. Spuni agreed and read paragraph 141 into the record, maintaining his formal stance that Putco transport contract regulations remain purely administrative and outside the commission’s core mandate.
Copyright: MDNtv
