By Johnathan Paoli
Taxi boss Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni is testifying at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry on Wednesday again, following him coming under sustained pressure to explain why he was entitled to 40% of a mining venture.
He has claimed that his role was to provide “local content” for businessman Dr Tengane Thomas Ntuli.
ALSO READ: Malema apologises to Parliament over Judge Matojane questioning
Sibanyoni told the commission on Tuesday that he partnered with Ntuli, who had secured a tender to supply materials for a portion of the R573 Moloto Road project, investing R900,000 in three instalments. He acknowledged that two of his payments were made outside the banking system.
But evidence leader Matthew Chaskalson questioned Sibanyoni on his claim that Ntuli needed him to participate in the supply of materials because of “local content” requirements.
Sibanyoni said the arrangement ultimately gave Ntuli 60% of the profits and himself 40%, because Ntuli was running the quarry while Sibanyoni provided the local component.
“As he does that business, we go to profits. On the profits, because he is the one who is running that quarry, we ended up saying he gets 60% because you are directly involved running the quarry, give me 40% of that,” Sibanyoni testified.
Local content requirement
He maintained that the 30% local content requirement related to the overall project, with other local contractors supplying equipment and labour making up portions of that figure.
“All those things combined, they form that 30%. So, Ntuli and I come with the supply of that stone,” he said.
Commissioner Sesi Baloyi pressed him on what he actually contributed to the transaction beyond his name.
“So, it’s really just having your name,” she put to him.
ALSO READ: Malema apologises to Parliament over Judge Matojane questioning
Baloyi suggested that, on his own version, the arrangement appeared to amount to fronting because Ntuli was doing the actual business while Sibanyoni benefited from the profits.
Sibanyoni agreed with the description of the structure, but stressed the importance of the local content requirement.
“Yes. But don’t run away from the local content because for me that local content is the fundamental issue in this matter,” he said.
Ntuli’s affidavit
The commission re-examined Ntuli’s affidavit, in which he disputed Sibanyoni’s version of the relationship and alleged that payments made to Sibanyoni and his associates were extorted from him.
Ntuli said Sibanyoni had imposed a security company linked to his nephew, Mandla Mtsweni, after his own security guards were assaulted.
“The security company was imposed on me by Joe Sibanyoni since the inception of the project after my own security were beaten on site and one of the security/guards was tied by cable and my weighbridge cable was cut off,” Ntuli stated in his affidavit.
He said payments were made directly to Mnyama Security from February 2022.
Sibanyoni confirmed that Mnyama belonged to Mtsweni, who has been identified in commission evidence as a suspect in the alleged Kwagga 20 criminal network, but denied knowledge of the alleged attacks.
Another witness and Ntuli’s wife, Bathabile Ntuli, also stated that she was personally aware that Sibanyoni and his associates had allegedly demanded money from Tengane Mining.
“I am also aware that there were WhatsApp messages sent to Dr Tengane Thomas Ntuli demanding meetings and payments. All the payments which were done to Mr Joe Sibanyoni and his team by Tengane Mining Pty Ltd were made under duress, as we were fearing for our life taking into account the bad operation history of Mr Joe Sibanyoni in Kwaggafontein,” she stated.
But Sibanyoni suggested Bathabile Ntuli’s statement may have been written by her husband and dismissed it as support for his version.
He also faced questions over a message from Sindane demanding payment and referring to an earlier 60/40 agreement between Ntuli and “the president”.
“We had initially agreed on a 60/40 split between you and the president. This was later reviewed and reduced to a more manageable amount for you. You used to pay us R100 000, but I’m now left confused as to why you’ve reduced the payment yet again,” Sindane wrote.
Sibanyoni denied being involved in threats against Ntuli, although he acknowledged that Sindane received a share of the R100,000 monthly payments because of his “proximity” to him.
The questioning repeatedly became heated when Chaskalson returned to the extortion allegations.
ALSO READ: Tshwane’s R32.6bn debt adds to business and service delivery woes
Sibanyoni complained that the evidence leader was effectively litigating the criminal case against him before the commission.
“Chair, where I am seated with the matter of Mr Ntuli, it’s a matter that is sub judice. For us unpacking it bit by bit, it’s a matter that does not make me feel comfortable because it is a very serious offence. It’s a very serious case that sits in Delmas. If Mr Chaskalson is pushing this matter, that it must be heard here, it prejudices my rights,” he said.
Sibanyoni nevertheless acknowledged that Ntuli had made payments to him and his companies, while maintaining they were legitimate business payments rather than protection money.
