Hearing record

Day 71

Witness: Major-General Richard Shibiri

SAPS organised-crime general Richard Shibiri was questioned over money he received from Vusimuzi 'Cat' Matlala, which he characterised as a loan he had since repaid - an account the commission openly doubted.

Awaiting portrait

The day in brief

What you need to know

  • Major-General Richard Shibiri, a senior SAPS organised-crime figure, faced questioning about money he received from alleged crime boss Vusimuzi 'Cat' Matlala.
  • Shibiri described the money as a loan and said he had repaid it, telling the commission the arrangement traced back to a September 2024 engagement party for the son of suspended deputy national commissioner Shadrack Sibiya.
  • He said he settled the debt by selling two cattle for R20,000 in cash in November 2024 and transferring a further R50,000 from his Absa account into an account provided by Matlala in late December.
  • Evidence leaders pressed the credibility of that account, noting Shibiri and his son held over R105,000 between them and questioning why he would need to borrow.
  • Bank records reportedly showed roughly R22,000 spent at Gucci and Louis Vuitton in Sandton after the money came in.
  • Justice Madlanga suggested the repayment may have followed police closing in on Matlala rather than any ordinary loan settlement; Shibiri's characterisation of the money as a repaid loan remains his account and is not a proven finding.
  • Shibiri is entitled to the presumption of innocence; the commission's questions test his version and do not establish guilt.

Full coverage

The day, in depth

The loan Shibiri says he repaid

Shibiri admitted receiving money from Matlala but insisted it was a loan he had paid back. He traced the origin to a 14 September 2024 engagement party for the son of suspended deputy national commissioner Shadrack Sibiya. His stated repayment method - cash from selling cattle plus an electronic transfer - became a focus of scrutiny.

Credibility under pressure

The commission questioned why Shibiri would borrow at all, given evidence that he and his son together held more than R105,000. Reporting noted bank statements showing about R22,000 spent at Gucci and Louis Vuitton in Sandton after he received the funds. Justice Madlanga put it to Shibiri that he may have repaid Matlala only once police were closing in.

A pattern the commission is probing

Shibiri's evidence sits within a broader line of inquiry into how officers allegedly came into Matlala's orbit through gifts, loans and favours. Later coverage framed his account as part of a wider study of how relationships with Matlala took shape. The commission is testing whether such transactions were innocent or compromising.

In their words

Key moments from the record

It was easier for me.
Major-General Richard Shibiri. Defending, under questioning, his decision to take money from Vusimuzi 'Cat' Matlala rather than use other means.

Our analysis

The bottom line

The Shibiri testimony crystallised a question that runs through much of the commission's police-facing evidence: when a senior officer takes money from a man later accused of serious crimes, does the label 'loan' survive contact with the surrounding facts. Shibiri offered a specific, checkable story - cattle sold, an account transfer, a party as the occasion - and specificity can cut both ways, because it invites exactly the documentary testing the commission applied.

None of this amounts to a finding. Shibiri's version is that the money was borrowed and repaid, and he is entitled to have that weighed rather than dismissed. But the chairperson's own observation - that repayment appeared to track the police net tightening around Matlala - shows why the commission is unlikely to accept the loan framing at face value. The value of the day is in the tension it lays bare between an innocent explanation and the timeline around it.

Analysis is the archive’s own comment on the public proceedings, grounded in the record above. It weighs the evidence and the process; questions of individual guilt are for the courts and the commission to decide. Everyone named is presumed innocent.