Joe Sibanyoni makes Madlanga Laugh & also objects to the questions posed by Commission.
Shocked Judges Stunned as Commission Hearing Shatters Under Explosive Retractions
The tension inside the heavily guarded hearing chamber was already suffocating, but nobody in the gallery was prepared for the total collapse of the state’s primary evidence matrix.
What was supposed to be a routine procedural reading of a supplementary statement quickly devolved into a high-stakes constitutional showdown that left evidence leaders scrambling.
The proceeding began on a deceptively polite note.
Mrs. Kofer was reminded by the bench that she remained under oath before taking her place at the microphone.
Brief pleasantries were exchanged regarding recent international travel to Europe, where the high-profile inquiry had reportedly become a primary topic of discussion among foreign observers.
The cordial atmosphere evaporated the moment the panel directed attention to the official record.
The witness, Mr. Spuni, was instructed to turn to page eighty of his paperwork to formally identify his signature on a critical supplementary affidavit.
Mr. Spuni confirmed the signature as his own, marking the official entry of his third supplementary statement into the record.
The eighty-five-page principal document, which had been filed weeks earlier and organized into distinct sections from parts A through Q, was immediately placed under intense scrutiny.
The defense launched an aggressive offensive, taking dead aim at the procedural mechanics of the commission itself.
Mr. Spuni formally recorded a scathing objection regarding the timing and delivery of crucial evidence bundles.
The legal team revealed that despite explicit undertakings from state evidence leaders to provide document packages five days prior to testimony, the final exhibit bundle was delivered late on the eve of the deadline at precisely 18:21 p.m.
A subsequent communication from the commission arrived at 11:15 a.m. the following day, informing the defense that yet another supplementary affidavit would be required to address continuously updating material.
Mr. Spuni openly denounced the practice of feeding evidence to the defense in drips and drabs.
He emphasized the immense financial hardship forced upon witnesses who must continually retain legal teams to review late-disclosed documents.
The record showed that while the principal statement was filed on August 17, 2026, the commission’s massive evidence bundle—comprising fifty-five separate items totaling 2,028 pages—was only delivered on September 4, 2026.
This chronological inversion forced the witness to submit formal sworn statements eighteen days before ever seeing the state’s documentary evidence.
In response, Mr. Spuni formally invoked his fundamental constitutional protections, explicitly reserving his right against self-incrimination under Section 35.3.J of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
A central pillar of the witness’s defense was a sweeping jurisdictional objection.
Mr. Spuni argued that large portions of the state’s 2,028-page bundle, along with a secondary package of 246 pages, fell completely outside the commission’s legal mandate as set out in Proclamation 269 of 2025.
He flatly refused to address allegations regarding external criminal matters, including the high-profile KwaGuqa 20 case, in which he is not an accused party.
Mr. Spuni disclosed to the panel that following his previous unlawful arrest in the KwaFontaine criminal matter, police officers tried to interrogate him about the KwaGuqa 20 case at the Middelburg police station under Colonel Sigubu.
He confirmed he would not comment further on those matters now that an active, live investigation is underway.
The testimony turned sharply to digital records, specifically a WhatsApp message sent by a Mr. Kambula Themba to Mr. Bafana Sindani at precisely 10:21:32 a.m.
The evidence showed that Mr. Bafana Sindani forwarded that exact message to Mr. Spuni just eighteen seconds later, at 10:21:50 a.m.
The defense argued that matters involving the Moloto Road infrastructure projects, Evergreen bus contracts, and taxi sector competition issues were administrative and commercial disputes, not criminal justice corruption, rendering them legally irrelevant to the inquiry.
A heated debate erupted between the bench and Mrs. Kofer regarding the legal application of Section 35.3.I of the Constitution.
The panel aggressively questioned why the right to adduce and challenge evidence in a criminal trial was being cited in an administrative commission.
Mrs. Kofer conceded on the record that the inclusion of subsection I was a drafting error on her part and should have been cited as subsection H, fully agreeing with the chairperson’s legal interpretation.
The most dramatic moment of the hearing occurred when Mr. Spuni systematically dismantled the state’s financial and forensic identification records.
The witness exposed a fatal, fundamental misidentification at the heart of the prosecution’s financial evidence.
State investigators had attributed financial transactions and a specific cellular phone number to a figure known in the records as “Bhutho”, attempting to link those payments directly to Mr. Spuni.
Mr. Spuni set the record straight under oath.
The real individual known as Bhutho is connected to Mr. Bafana Sindani through marriage in the same household, and that specific person retired from the South African Police Service on January 31, 2025.
When pressed by the panel for the retired officer’s full legal name, Mr. Spuni testified that he only ever knew him as Bhutho, noting the man had previously been a star soccer player.
Mr. Spuni then revealed that the cellular number highlighted in the state’s financial evidence actually belonged to an entirely different person named Mr. Khuzani Mthembu.
Mr. Khuzani Mthembu, who was associated with an entity called National Resour Trading, passed away in 2025.
Mr. Spuni confirmed under oath that he had zero ownership, control, or association with National Resour Trading, completely severing the state’s financial link.
The witness further detached himself from a separate cellular transaction involving an individual named Mr. Busman Giluni, testifying that he does not know the person who received a payment of 600 rand.
The factual dismantling continued as Mr. Spuni addressed the identity of Warrant Officer Machangu, who is referred to in state records as “Poholo”.
The commission’s evidence bundle had conflated Warrant Officer Machangu with an individual named Calvin Machangu.
Mr. Spuni clarified that Warrant Officer Machangu is a serving member of the South African Police Service and a homeboy from KwaGuqa Fontaine.
He explained the familial connection by noting that his younger brother fathered a child with a member of the Machangu family, establishing a traditional brother-in-law relationship.
The chairperson questioned the cultural nuances of this relationship, comparing it to traditions in the area of Alice, before allowing the witness to proceed.
Mr. Spuni explicitly testified that Calvin Machangu is a completely separate individual with no relation to Warrant Officer Machangu.
He further shattered state inferences by identifying newspaper reports regarding Jabu Kabu Mashangu, an alleged taxi hitman.
Mr. Spuni swore that Jabu Kabu Mashangu is a completely distinct third person who merely shares a common surname, asserting that any attempt to link him to the alleged hitman is entirely without evidential foundation.
Addressing the critical issue of state security and gate access codes at the St. Gate estate, Mr. Spuni painted a harrowing picture of his operating environment.
He testified that during the period under scrutiny, he experienced a devastating avalanche of sudden, fatal deaths among his close associates and colleagues in the taxi industry.
In response to this extreme, sustained threat, Mr. Spuni made a deliberate security decision to centralize all business and team meetings at his office, which operates out of a guest house he owns within the St. Gate estate.
To facilitate these high-security meetings, access codes were generated and sent to associates, including Warrant Officer Machangu.
Mr. Spuni pointed to the state’s own forensic evidence, which showed that on July 12 and July 13, 2025, numerous entrance codes were issued to Mr. Bafana Sindani while Mr. Spuni was physically located outside the country on international travel.
He explained that once a trusted recipient received an entrance code, any onward sharing or forwarding of that code to third parties was entirely beyond his knowledge or control.
Under direct questioning regarding specific police officers named in the records, Mr. Spuni swore that he has no personal, social, or professional relationship whatsoever with Bhela Mashiko, Ruen Benjamin Taku, or Pillusa Mlebo Elvis.
He denied ever being part of a WhatsApp group with Bhela Mashiko, explicitly refuting an eighteen-page digital forensic record submitted by the state as CJC 480.
Mr. Spuni demanded that the commission formally verify the true composition of the chat groups, maintaining that communications between third parties occurred entirely without his solicitation, direction, or knowledge.
As the hearing drawn to a close, the panel debated whether the regulation notices represented an active argument by the state or merely a framework of questions.
The defense maintained that the combination of late evidence and mixed identities created an entirely artificial narrative designed to construct a false systemic pattern against the witness.
Copyright: Daily Updates ZA
