“THEY FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES” | SIBIYA COMPLAINANTS HEADED FOR WITNESS PROTECTION, COURT HEARS*
An explosive courtroom showdown unraveled as a state witness delivered a sworn affidavit pleading to keep an accused predator behind bars while exposing a sinister web of police access, nightmarish extortion, and terrifying death threats.
A investigating officer took the stand to present a sworn statement urging the court to deny bail to the applicant.
The officer highlighted the overwhelming strength of the prosecution’s case and emphasized that ending abuse cannot continuously rest on the shoulders of victims who are forced to alter their daily routines just to survive.
The sworn statement was formally commissioned and submitted as Exhibit E before the honorable court.
During questioning, critical details emerged regarding a figure named Rasa Paige, also referred to in court as Sergeant Rasakoka.
The court heard that Rasakoka accessed the official police system to photograph a critical case file.
The picture was taken on September 18, 2026, the exact same day that an inquiry was converted into an official docket under CAS number 446 of 9 2026 in Sandton.
On that exact same date, the victim’s father, Mr. M, received a direct threatening phone call from the applicant while in the presence of the investigating officer.
Further evidence detailed explicit middle-of-the-night text message exchanges dated July 24, 2026.
The applicant sent a message at 18 minutes past midnight reminding the recipient of a promise, to which ZM responded four minutes later promising to fulfill it shortly.
At 23 minutes past midnight, the applicant texted asking if the recipient wanted him to watch, referring directly to requested video footage of explicit conduct that was buffering during upload.
The courtroom grew tense as the officer revealed the ongoing horror inflicted upon the young victims involved in the matter.
The court was alerted that the young girls have been constantly sending desperate text messages expressing extreme fear for their lives or threatening suicide.
These alarming messages continued through yesterday and today, prompting urgent inquiries from the judge regarding witness protection.
The state confirmed that the witness protection program has been formally engaged to safeguard the family.
The formal relocation under witness protection was temporarily delayed because the children are currently writing their final school examinations.
The family agreed to temporary safety arrangements until the exams conclude, with full protection measures set to launch within the month of October.
The testimony then shifted to the employment background of Mr. M, who previously worked for the applicant.
Mr. M abruptly halted his employment immediately after his daughter reported the horrific incident, as the emotional shock rendered him completely unable to continue working for the applicant.
Mr. M directly communicated to the applicant that they were parting ways, making the termination of their work relationship crystal clear.
The court addressed the applicant’s firearm, confirming that it was a private weapon rather than a state-issued gun, which explained why it was not automatically confiscated upon suspension.
A fierce clash then erupted during cross-examination regarding the official authority and jurisdiction of the investigating officer.
The defense attorney questioned the officer’s attachment to the commission’s recommendations task team, a unit operating alongside the national task team formed around 2020 or 2021.
The defense pressed the witness on the specific mandate of the Madlanga Commission, which commenced in 2025.
The defense attorney read directly from Government Gazette number 53048, dated July 23, 2025, specifically citing clause 10.4.
The clause establishes that the commission holds the legal power to refer matters for immediate criminal investigation and urgent prosecution decisions based on allegations and evidence uncovered by the commission.
The defense accused the officer of stepping entirely outside the official scope of the commission by taking on a private sexual offense case rather than acting strictly on names provided directly by the commission.
The officer firmly rejected the accusation, shaking her head in disagreement on the witness stand.
The investigating officer explained that the commission provides names recommended for investigation, and the applicant’s name was officially listed on those records.
During that time, the complainant directly approached the task team, explaining that it was impossible to get a case of such a sensitive nature registered through normal police channels.
The complainant expressed full trust that the special task team was the only rightful authority capable of investigating the matter safely.
The defense argued that a specific officer attached to a specialized unit must follow rigid procedural protocols rather than investigating general criminal complaints.
The officer delivered a fiery defense of her duties as a police officer, stating that her sworn duty obligates her to investigate reported crimes regardless of specialized unit designations.
She declared that if she were driving down the road and witnessed a person being shot, her fundamental duty as a police officer would require her to intervene and take immediate action.
She clarified that she took on the case to restore public confidence in the justice system after the complainant faced severe intimidation.
The officer confirmed that superiors and commanders were present when the complainant reported the horrific details to the recommendations task team.
Those commanding officers formally assigned her to lead the docket because she received the firsthand testimony directly from the victim’s family.
She further testified that a dedicated prosecutor was assigned to the task team to handle the legal processing of the docket.
The officer confirmed her extensive investigative background, having served as a detective in the South African Police Service since 2012 specializing in the resolution of crime.
Copyright: MDNtv
