Sibanyoni calls the Moloto payments a business deal as extortion allegations face scrutiny

Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni has defended his financial relationship with a businessman supplying material to the Moloto Road project, telling the Madlanga Commission that he contributed R900,000 to a business venture. His account conflicts with allegations that regular payments were extracted through threats to interrupt the contractor’s operations.

The testimony on 29 September adds Sibanyoni’s explanation to the messages and allegations examined the previous day. It sharpens the central dispute: whether the payments reflected a genuine commercial arrangement or an imposed charge for being allowed to work.

Sibanyoni denies extortion. The commission’s examination is separate from the criminal proceedings, and neither allegations read into the record nor a disputed admission should be presented as a verdict.

The contractor’s account

Businessman Tengane Thomas Ntuli supplied aggregate stone for work connected to the South African National Roads Agency’s Moloto Road upgrade. Reporting on the commission describes alleged payments of about R2.29 million between July 2021 and November 2025, frequently in R100,000 amounts.

Ntuli’s account is that demands were made for protection payments and that the continuation of operations was used as pressure. Evidence leader Matthew Chaskalson examined communications allegedly involving Sibanyoni’s associate Oupa “Bafana” Sindane.

The reporting describes a message questioning why payments had been reduced and another demand for an explanation within 48 hours, accompanied by a warning that work could be stopped. The inquiry is examining the messages in the context of the relationship and the payments, rather than as isolated phrases.

Sibanyoni’s response

Sibanyoni told the commission that he had invested R900,000 and entered a partnership with Ntuli. His explanation was that the arrangement helped the business meet local participation requirements associated with the work.

That is his account of the commercial purpose. It does not establish the precise procurement conditions applying to every contract, nor does it answer by itself whether later payments were voluntary or coerced.

Sibanyoni also objected to detailed questioning about a matter before the criminal court in Delmas. Jacaranda FM reported that he challenged the admissibility of the WhatsApp material. Those objections are part of his response and should be reported alongside the allegations.

Sibanyoni, Sindane, Mvimbi Masilela and Philemon Msiza were arrested in May 2026 on extortion and money-laundering charges arising from the complaint. The reporting states that all four deny the allegations and are on bail.

What the competing explanations require

An investment payment and a later allegation of coercion are not mutually exclusive factual possibilities. Evidence of one transfer does not settle the character of every payment that followed. Equally, a payment described by a complainant as extortion still needs to be tested against the full evidence and the defence response.

The distinction calls for documents: the terms of the claimed partnership, the parties’ contributions, the purpose of payments, the communications accompanying demands and any evidence of threatened or actual disruption. The issue is what those records establish about consent and conduct.

This is why a sensational social-media figure is a poor substitute for the transactions under examination. The R600 million tender and R150 million demand circulating in a separate caption have not been substantiated in the material checked for this report. They should not be used as the headline amount in this case.

Why the dispute matters beyond the parties

Public infrastructure depends on contractors and suppliers being able to operate under enforceable agreements. If a business must pay an unofficial gatekeeper to continue work, that would raise questions about protection, project delivery and the ability of procurement rules to operate as intended.

Whether that happened here remains contested. The commission is testing a claimed business arrangement against an allegation of coercion, while a criminal court must determine the charges through its own process. Readers deserve both accounts, the evidence connecting them and a clear distinction between what has been alleged and what has been decided.