By Johnathan Paoli
Suspended SAPS Organised Crime Investigations head Major-General Richard Shibiri has come under fire from the Madlanga Commission after his own bank records showed he had more than enough money to cover his son’s car repairs when he accepted a R70,000 payment from controversial businessman Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala.
Shibiri returned to the commission on Thursday morning, where chairperson Mbuyiseli Madlanga pressed him on financial records that appeared to contradict his explanation that the money from Matlala was needed to assist his son following a car accident.
ALSO READ: A BBL, a denial, and Matlala in the middle, who lied under oath?
Referring Shibiri to the bank statements, Madlanga noted that on 18 September 2024 the senior police officer had significant funds available in his account.
“All in all you have in excess of R94,000 in credit. Between you and your son, you had in excess of R105,000 available. You didn’t need Matlala’s money,” Madlanga said.
Madlanga said that Shibiri’s current account reflected about R50,000 in available funds, while his overdraft facility provided an additional R44,000. His son had approximately R11,000 in his own bank account on the same day.
Combined, the two accounts had almost double the estimated cost of repairing the damaged vehicle.
ALSO READ: Lamola warns SADC of Middle East economic shocks
The quotation for the repairs, which was submitted to the commission, was approximately R55,000.
Shibiri said that the accident was only one of several financial obligations he was facing at the time.
He said he was planning renovations that included building a wall at his home in Mogale City, doing work on his parents’ home in Tzaneen, renovating his father’s tombstone, and hosting a family thanksgiving gathering scheduled for September 2024.
Shibiri told the commission he anticipated repaying the money within a few months, once he received his annual bonus.
Commissioner Sandile Khumalo pressed Shibiri on the necessity of the loan, pointing out that the financial pressure he described appeared inconsistent with the timeline of events.
Khumalo reminded Shibiri that he had testified that the repairs to his son’s damaged vehicle were carried out over a period of three months. He further noted that just 12 days after the money was advanced, both Shibiri and his son received their monthly salaries, placing them in a stronger financial position to cover the repair costs themselves.
ALSO READ: Vuma tells ad hoc committee she was removed for probing top SAPS officials
Shibiri said that the household still had ongoing obligations, and the funds were needed because they “still had daily living expenses and other commitments to cover”.
Khumalo also confronted Shibiri with luxury purchases reflected in his bank statements, saying they further undermined his claim that he needed financial assistance from Matlala.
Khumalo pointed to a R19,000 purchase at the Gucci store in Sandton in November 2024, as well as another purchase at Louis Vuitton just days earlier.
He said that even after the Gucci transaction, Shibiri still had about R50,000 in his account, excluding an additional R44,000 overdraft facility, and therefore “did not need a loan” from Matlala.
Shibiri said that the luxury purchase was not for himself, explaining that he had bought the item for a friend who had previously bought him similar designer goods.
He said he had simply bought “a Gucci for someone who had bought me a Gucci”.
Further tension emerged when evidence leader Advocate Lee Segeels-Ncube raised discrepancies between Shibiri’s account and statements made by Matlala after his arrest last year, noting that during questioning Matlala did not describe the R70,000 transfer as a loan.
ALSO READ: ANC KZN waits for Luthuli House directive on possible MK Party talks
She said Matlala’s statement did, however, support Shibiri’s version that he had travelled to Tzaneen for a family thanksgiving.
Shibiri rejected the reliability of Matlala’s recorded interview, saying he did not accept the evidence because the businessman had allegedly been interrogated unlawfully by a junior officer.
As the questioning continued, Shibiri accused the commission of pursuing a predetermined narrative against him, saying he did not wish to respond to “choreographed statements by the investigators”, while Segeels-Ncube insisted the commission was simply attempting to verify the facts.
The commission continues.
