A voice note obtained exclusively by MDNtv captures murder accused Tiffany Meek confronting her father over a social media comment she feared was hurting her case. Her disclosure that she had regained access to her phone adds to unanswered questions about communications from inside the correctional facility.

Murder accused Tiffany Meek was monitoring public discussion of her case and seeking to shape how her father responded on social media while she was behind bars, an exclusive voice note obtained by MDNtv reveals.

The recording also contains a disclosure that intensifies questions about security inside the correctional facility.

“I have access to my phone again,” Meek tells her father at the beginning of the voice note.

The statement follows an earlier MDNtv investigation into leaked WhatsApp messages in which an account purportedly belonging to Meek discussed arranging for a cellphone to be brought into prison.

Taken together, the communications present Correctional Services with direct questions about whether Meek possessed an unauthorised device, how it may have entered the facility and whether officials detected or investigated its alleged use.

The Department of Correctional Services has yet to respond to questions sent by MDNtv.

“Sho!” comment prompts confrontation

In the voice note, Meek tells her father that she had learned about a comment he posted beneath a TikTok video discussing a charge announced against her in court.

His comment consisted of a single expression: “Sho!”

Although the meaning of the expression can depend on context, Meek describes her father’s response as “shocking” and confronts him for posting publicly without first speaking to her.

“I feel like I need to express how insensitive it is for you to actually go on social media and comment something like that without sending me a message or something,” she says.

Her concern appears to centre on the fact that members of the public could identify the commenter as her father and interpret his reaction accordingly.

“People obviously know that’s from my father,” Meek says. “So a comment like that, it’s not only hurting me, but it’s hurting my case as well.”

Meek does not directly order her father to delete the comment or stop posting.

Her intervention nevertheless shows her monitoring his public activity, challenging what he had written and warning him about its perceived effect on her defence.

It amounts to an apparent attempt to police the public commentary of a close family member while her criminal proceedings remain before court.

Bail court raised concern about family influence

The exchange takes on added significance when considered alongside Magistrate Anneline Afrika’s findings during Meek’s unsuccessful bail application.

In refusing bail, Afrika raised concerns about Meek’s ability to influence witnesses, particularly members of her family.

“If the applicant has the ability to deceive without hesitation, then surely the applicant has the ability to influence witnesses, especially her family,” the magistrate said.

The voice note does not establish that Meek threatened, intimidated or unlawfully influenced her father. It does, however, capture her monitoring his social media activity, confronting him over a public comment and warning that it was hurting her case.

Afrika’s remarks were made while assessing whether Meek should be released on bail. They do not constitute a finding of guilt in the murder trial, where Meek remains presumed innocent.

Access to information from inside prison

The recording does not establish how Meek became aware of the TikTok post or her father’s response.

She does not say whether she viewed the content herself, received a screenshot or was informed about it by somebody outside the facility.

That uncertainty is significant because Meek’s statement that she had access to her phone “again” indicates an interruption followed by the restoration of access.

The recording does not identify the device, establish whether its use was authorised or explain who controlled it when Meek could not access it.

It does, however, provide further evidence that communications attributed to Meek were taking place from custody.

Earlier messages alleged cellphone was smuggled inside

MDNtv previously obtained screenshots of a WhatsApp conversation purportedly involving Meek and another individual.

The messages were dated 5 September 2025, less than two months after her arrest and unsuccessful bail application.

In the exchange, an account bearing the name “Tiffany Lucas” announced that she had gained access to WhatsApp.

When asked whose cellphone she was using, the account responded: “My own. Had to arrange it to be brought in. I feel like a real criminal.”

The messages suggested that the device may have been delivered through a woman trusted by Meek who had brought clothing from her home.

They also contained claims that inmates received warnings about impending searches and concealed their cellphones before officials entered their cells.

An unverified allegation was made that some correctional officials were involved in prohibited activities inside the prison.

MDNtv has not established whether the cellphone was subsequently discovered or confiscated.

Correctional Services has not answered

Following the earlier investigation, MDNtv asked Correctional Services whether it knew about the alleged cellphone, whether Meek had been investigated or disciplined and whether an inquiry would be launched into how the device may have entered the facility.

The department has not responded.

Its silence leaves unresolved whether prison authorities knew about the alleged communications and whether security measures designed to prevent contraband from entering the facility were breached.

Cellphones are unauthorised inside South African correctional facilities unless their possession or use has been officially approved.

Unauthorised devices can enable inmates to communicate beyond the supervision of correctional authorities, contact witnesses, discuss pending proceedings or coordinate prohibited activities.

There is no evidence in the material obtained by MDNtv that Meek used the alleged device to threaten witnesses, interfere with evidence or commit an additional offence.

“I’m defeated, I’m broken”

Beyond the security questions, the recording reveals apparent tension between Meek and her father.

She accuses him of no longer asking about developments in her case and says he commented without understanding the circumstances behind the charge discussed on TikTok.

“There’s a lot of things happening in my case. You don’t even ask anymore,” Meek says.

“I feel like at this point I’m defeated, I’m broken.”

She tells her father that he might have responded differently had he first heard her explanation.

“If you heard from me the in-depth of where that charge comes from, then maybe you wouldn’t have been so abrupt to comment something like that on social media,” she says.

Meek ends the recording by saying she is “extremely hurt”.

Lawyers previously rejected untested allegations

Meek’s legal representatives previously told MDNtv that their client expressly did not admit the cellphone allegations.

LB Wyngaard & Associates said the firm had not been given sufficient time to consult Meek and obtain comprehensive instructions before MDNtv’s initial report was published.

The firm also said it had not received the underlying communications, electronic files or metadata required to verify the material.

Her lawyers cautioned that electronic communications could be misattributed, removed from their original context or technically altered. They requested complete and unredacted copies before providing a substantive response.

MDNtv is withholding information that could identify confidential sources or compromise its continuing investigation.

Trial set to resume

Meek is standing trial in the Johannesburg High Court, sitting at Palm Ridge, for the murder of her 11-year-old son, Jayden-Lee Meek.

Jayden-Lee was reported missing on 13 May 2025 after he allegedly failed to return home from school. His body was discovered the following day near the Fleurhof apartment complex where he lived with his mother.

Meek has pleaded not guilty and denies killing her son. She also faces additional charges, including child abuse and neglect.

Her trial is scheduled to resume on 14 September 2026 following an inspection in loco at the Fleurhof apartment complex.

The voice note, bail court findings and alleged unauthorised cellphone communications are separate from the evidence being presented in the murder trial. They do not establish Meek’s guilt or innocence on the charges before the trial court.

MDNtv’s investigation continues.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content