SIBIYA CASE: How Did He Get ZM’sIntimate Photos? State Says Answer Is StillUnder Investigation
Digital forensic examination of the teenager’s cellphone could become critical as the
defence challenges the State over an unanswered question at the heart of the case: how
the applicant allegedly obtained the images.
RANDURG – A crucial unanswered question has emerged in the bail proceedings of suspended Deputy
National Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Shadrack Sibiya: how did he allegedly come into
possession of intimate photographs of the 16-year-old complainant identified in court as ZM?
During cross-examination of investigating officer Detective Sergeant Nokukhanya Ndlovu, the defence
focused closely on the origin of photographs that the State alleges were in Sibiya’s possession and
were later sent back to ZM
According to the State’s version placed before court, ZM was surprised and terrified when she allegedly
discovered that Sibiya had intimate photographs of her. The investigating officer confirmed that, on the
complainant’s version, she did not know how the applicant had obtained the images.
That uncertainty became the focus of a sustained defence challenge.
The defence put forward Sibiya’s version that material had been supplied to him by Mr M, the
complainant’s father and a former associate of Sibiya. Ndlovu did not accept that proposition as
established fact and told the court she had no evidence that Mr M possessed or sent the photographs.
The defence then pressed the investigator on whether the State currently had evidence under oath
explaining how the applicant allegedly obtained photographs which, on the defence’s version, existed
before ZM met him.
Ndlovu told the court that the question was still under investigation and referred to the possibility of
phone hacking.
The exchange is significant because it exposes a factual issue that has not yet been resolved by the
evidence heard in the bail proceedings: the route by which the intimate images allegedly reached the
applicant.
ZM’s phone seized for digital forensics
The court also heard that ZM’s cellphone had been seized and submitted for digital forensic
examination. The defence asked whether investigators would be able to determine if the photographs
had previously been sent or distributed to another person before allegedly reaching Sibiya.
What the forensic examination could clarify
Ndlovu confirmed that the device had been submitted for digital forensic investigation for that purpose.
The evidence does not establish what the forensic examination will ultimately show, and no finding
MDNtv | People-Driven News Page 3
should be inferred before the results are placed before court.
Defence challenges the chronology
Cross-examination also moved to communications surrounding a sexually explicit video allegedly sent
by ZM on 24 July 2026. The defence argued that the sequence in the investigator’s affidavit did not
contain an immediately preceding message in which Sibiya asked ZM to send that particular video.
State relies on earlier communications
Ndlovu disputed the suggestion that the video was unsolicited. She relied on earlier communications,
including an alleged 51-minute WhatsApp call and a later exchange in which Sibiya allegedly reminded
ZM that she had promised him something. The defence disputes the State’s interpretation of the
communications.
A question still waiting for an answer
The origin of the intimate photographs is therefore likely to remain an important evidential issue as the
criminal case develops. At bail stage, the court is not determining Sibiya’s guilt or innocence. Sibiya
disputes the allegations against him, and the competing versions remain to be tested in the criminal
proceedings.
Legal note: The allegations described in this article are before court. Sibiya disputes the allegations against him. Bail
proceedings do not determine guilt, and all accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty
