“THEY FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES” | SIBIYA COMPLAINANTS HEADED FOR WITNESS PROTECTION, COURT HEARS*
A Shocking Courtroom Stand-Off Erupts After Secret Files Are Leaked to Threaten a Terrified Witness
A high-stakes legal showdown reached a boiling point in open court as explosive sworn testimony unmasked a shadowy network of police database breaches, midnight coercion, and desperate pleas for witness protection.
The dramatic proceedings centered on a sworn affidavit presented before the court, requesting that bail be firmly refused against the applicant to prevent further intimidation and uphold the administration of justice.
Under official questioning, Sergeant confirmed that she personally signed and commissioned the affidavit today, swearing to the absolute truth of its contents before a commissioner of oaths.
Addressing the court directly, Sergeant verified that an individual named Rasa Paige, also identified as Sergeant Rasakoka, illegally accessed the official police system to photograph confidential case files.
Sergeant testified that on September 18, 2026, the exact same day she officially converted an initial inquiry into CAS docket number 446 of 9 2026 at the Sandton Police Station, Sergeant Rasakoka accessed the database and took a photograph of the registered docket.
On that very same date, September 18, 2026, Mr. M received a threatening phone call directly from the applicant in the physical presence of Sergeant.
The court examined paragraph 7.3 of the sworn affidavit, which documented a disturbing late-night text message exchange occurring in the early morning hours of July 24, 2026.
At 00:18 in the morning, the applicant sent a text message stating: “I remember you promised something”.
Four minutes later, at 00:22, ZM responded via text: “oh yes I remember I will keep my promises in a few minutes”.
At 00:23, the applicant sent another text asking: “do you want me to watch”.
Asked to clarify the exact nature of the applicant’s question, Sergeant testified under oath that the applicant was referring to the actual live conduct of masturbation, having requested a video that was buffering and taking long to upload.
The state requested that the sworn affidavit be officially marked as Exhibit E before the court.
Addressing the bench, Sergeant alerted the court to an urgent ongoing crisis, revealing that the young victims involved are constantly sending desperate text messages indicating they are contemplating suicide or fearing for their lives.
Sergeant confirmed that the official witness protection program has already been engaged to secure the victims.
However, because the victims are currently writing their final school examinations, their families agreed to maintain temporary security measures until the formal witness protection program fully embarks in the month of October.
The court further inquired about the employment status of Mr. M, with Sergeant confirming that Mr. M stopped working for the applicant immediately after his daughter reported the incident.
Mr. M formally communicated to the applicant on August 14, 2026, that they were parting ways, leaving his job due to the severe disturbance caused by the incident.
When questioned about firearm protocols during suspensions, Sergeant clarified that the applicant retained his firearm because it was a personal sidearm rather than a state-issued weapon.
Defence counsel then initiated a aggressive cross-examination, questioning Sergeant regarding her official credentials, background, and jurisdictional authority.
Sergeant confirmed under oath that she has served as a detective in the resolving of crime unit since 2012, before joining the national task team in 2020 or 2021, and subsequently being seconded to the commission’s recommendations task team in July.
Defence counsel produced Government Gazette number 53048, dated July 23, 2025, reading clause 10.4 into the record regarding the power to refer matters for immediate criminal investigation based on allegations and evidence uncovered by the commission.
Defence counsel aggressively accused Sergeant of exceeding her legal authority and stepping outside the specific mandate of the task team, arguing that the sexual offense charges were brought directly by private complainants rather than uncovered by the commission itself.
Sergeant firmly rejected the defence’s assertions, explaining that the commission provides lists of recommended names for investigation, and the applicant’s name was explicitly included on that list.
When the complainant approached the task team stating that it was impossible to get a case of such a nature registered anywhere else, Sergeant and her team stepped in to investigate.
“As a police officer, I have the duty if a case is reported to me to ensure that it is investigated”, Sergeant told the court, rejecting the suggestion that she was restricted strictly to standard commission filings.
Sergeant testified that her commanding officers were present during the initial complaint and explicitly assigned her to lead the docket, while a dedicated prosecutor assigned to the task team was brought in to guide the final stages of the investigation.
Copyright:
