Madlanga tells Shibiri R70k from Matlala 'could not possibly have been a loan'

Shibiri has told the commission that he borrowed the money to help his son repair a vehicle.

But bank records presented before the commission on Thursday show that between Shibiri and his son, they had more than R100,000 available at the time.

Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga questioned why Shibiri would borrow money from a person implicated in serious criminal allegations when he already had sufficient funds.

“I just do not understand this idea that you need the loan when you yourself say that in December you are going to get in excess of R100,000 of your own money,” Madlanga said.

“Why would you not have used that money?”

Shibiri maintained that taking the loan was simply more convenient for him at the time.

“I saw it convenient for me to use the loan and repay it and use the other monies for what I had intended to,” he told the commission.

“Other people can think otherwise, but that was my thinking.”

Shibiri testified that Matlala lent him R70,000 in September 2024 to repair his son’s car.

He says he repaid R20,000 in cash in November 2024 and the remaining R50,000 the following month.

But Madlanga put it to Shibiri that the timing of the final repayment raised serious concerns.

This was after law enforcement authorities raided two properties linked to Matlala in December 2024.

Madlanga suggested that the payment into Matlala’s bank account may have been intended to make the transaction appear like a legitimate loan.

“I conclude this engagement with a similar suggestion as the two that I made yesterday,” Madlanga said.

“It seems to me that this could not possibly have been a loan because you simply did not need the money.”

Shibiri has insisted that he had earmarked the money in his own accounts for other commitments, including renovations at his home and the installation of a tombstone.

However, Madlanga said Shibiri’s explanations appear to suggest he needed the money, which further casts doubt on whether the payment could truly have been a genuine loan.

The commission also questioned Shibiri’s judgment in borrowing money from a person he knew was implicated in serious criminal allegations.

Madlanga reminded Shibiri that he was not only a police officer, but a senior one.

“You are not just a police officer, you are a general,” Madlanga said.

“You cannot seriously tell us that you would choose the easier option of borrowing money from a person implicated in criminality simply because you knew you would pay it back soon.”

Shibiri conceded that accepting a loan from someone facing serious allegations was something he now regrets.

“The worst thing that I am taking home now is that I decided to take a loan from a seriously implicated person,” he said.

However, he maintained that at the time the allegations against Matlala had not yet resulted in criminal charges.

“I accept that point, even though I take this serious implication with a pinch because nobody was charged,” Shibiri said.

“But I’m not sorry for my decision. I decided as a man who was thinking in that particular way at that time.”

Commissioner Sandile Khumalo also added that the repairs to the vehicle were not carried out immediately and happened over a period of months, further weakening the argument that Shibiri urgently needed the money.

Khumalo noted that within weeks of the alleged loan, both Shibiri and his son had received their salaries, significantly improving their financial position.

“So there really was no urgent need for a loan from Mr Matlala,” Khumalo said.

“But by the time you had to pay for the repairs, your financial position was already better.”

Despite the commission’s concerns, Shibiri maintained that the transaction was a legitimate loan which he repaid in full.

“I had my reasons, and I gave my reasons why I chose to take the loan,” he said.

“It remained a loan which I paid.”

ALSO READ: