“YOU ONLY HAVE HER PHONE” | SIBIYA’S LAWYER GRILLS INVESTIGATOR OVER WHATSAPP EVIDENCE
Chilling Testimony Exposes Leaked Police Systems, Death Threats, and Searing Task Team Power Struggles

A high-stakes courtroom confrontation reached a scorching climax as an official state affidavit exposed systemic security breaches, explicit text exchanges, and intense jurisdictional warfare over a high-profile criminal investigation.
Taking the witness stand under oath, Sergeant confirmed that she personally authored and signed her official affidavit before a commissioner of oaths, formally requesting that bail be denied against the applicant to protect vulnerable victims and uphold the interests of justice.
The courtroom fell silent as Sergeant detailed a series of grave security compromises, confirming that an individual identified as Rasa Paige, also referred to as Sergeant Rasakoka, illegally accessed the official police system to photograph confidential dockets.
Sergeant testified that on the exact same day she officially converted the initial inquiry into CAS docket number 446 of 9 2026 at the Sandton Police Station, Sergeant Rasakoka accessed the system and took a photograph of the case files.
That very same day, September 18, 2026, an associate named Mr. M received an immediate threatening phone call from the applicant directly in the presence of Sergeant.
The court perused paragraph 7.3 of the state affidavit, which outlined an explosive late-night text exchange from 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, an individual identified as ZM responded: “Oh yes I remember I will keep my promises in a few minutes”.
At 00:23, the applicant sent a follow-up text asking: “Do you want me to watch?”.
When asked by the court to clarify what the applicant meant by asking “Do you want me to watch?”, Sergeant explained under oath that the applicant was referring to the live conduct of masturbation, having requested a video that was buffering and taking long to upload.
Addressing the court regarding the ongoing safety of the victims, Sergeant revealed that the young girls involved are continuously sending text messages expressing extreme terror and threatening suicide.
“It is a constant thing and this is really worrying”, Sergeant told the court, warning that the victims are living in perpetual fear for their lives.
When questioned about protective measures, Sergeant confirmed that the official witness protection program has been engaged.
However, because the young victims are currently writing their final school examinations, their families agreed to maintain temporary security arrangements until the formal witness protection program takes over in October.
The inquiry then examined the sudden departure of Mr. M from the applicant’s employ.
Sergeant clarified that as soon as the daughter reported the incident, Mr. M was deeply disturbed and immediately communicated to the applicant on August 14, 2026, that they were parting ways.
Addressing a question regarding firearms, Sergeant confirmed that when an individual is suspended, personal sidearms are not confiscated by the state because the weapon involved was a personal firearm rather than a state-issued firearm.
Defence counsel then launched a sharp cross-examination, questioning Sergeant regarding her official standing and authority within the law enforcement hierarchy.
Sergeant confirmed that she has been a detective since 2012, serving in the resolving of crime unit 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 powers of the commission to refer matters for immediate criminal investigation taking into account allegations and evidence uncovered by the commission.
Defence counsel aggressively accused Sergeant of exceeding her official mandate, arguing that the sexual offense allegations were brought directly by private complainants rather than formally uncovered or referred by the Madlanga Commission.
Sergeant firmly rejected the defense’s premise, explaining that the commission provides lists of recommended names for investigation, and the applicant’s name was explicitly listed.
When the complainant approached the task team explaining that it was impossible to get a case of such a nature registered through standard channels, Sergeant and her superiors took on the docket.
“As a police officer, I have the duty if a case is reported to me to ensure that it is investigated”, Sergeant declared on the stand, rejecting the assertion that she was restricted strictly to commission filings.
Sergeant testified that her direct superiors tasked her with leading the investigation after the complainants presented their first-hand account in her presence.
Furthermore, Sergeant confirmed that a dedicated prosecutor assigned to the task team was brought in to guide the case as the investigation neared completion.
Copyright: Daily Updates ZA