Masemola placed Sibiya on a leave of absence following a series of explosive allegations made by KZN Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
Deputy National Commissioner for Crime Detection, Lieutenant-General Shadrack Sibiya, will on Tuesday challenge his boss, National Police Commissioner General Fannie Masemola’s decision to place him on leave of absence pending an investigation.
Masemola placed Sibiya on a leave of absence in July, following a series of explosive allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi earlier during the month.
Allegations
Sibiya was accused by Mkhwanazi of being a “criminal” and doing Police Minister Senzo Mchunu’s bidding.
He is also accused of executing instructions from Mchunu to disband the Political Killings Task Team, allegedly to protect criminal syndicates.
Back to work
Sibiya is demanding to return to work after giving Masemola a deadline to reverse his decision to place him on suspension.
He denies the claims, calling his leave “unlawful” and “procedurally flawed.”
Sibiya charges in papers that the impugned decision is in breach of his contract of employment and the Discipline Regulations.
Arguments
He argues that Masemola failed to follow the proper disciplinary regulations by suspending him without first allowing him an opportunity to make representations.
Sibiya also claims that Masemola’s decision was based on “untested allegations” from Mkhwanazi, and that his boss is biased, having acted as both a “complainant and decision-maker.”
ALSO READ: Masemola in firing line over multimillion-rand buildings acquisition [VIDEO]
Zuma and MK party
President Cyril Ramaphosa placed Mchunu on a leave of absence after allegations made against him by Mkhwanazi.
Earlier this month, a battle played out in the Constitutional Court with former president Jacob Zuma and MK party leader asking the court to declare Ramaphosa’s decision to place Mchunu on special leave.
They also want the appointment of Wits law Professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry to be declared invalid, null and void and unconstitutional and set aside.
ConCourt
The ConCourt on 31 July 2025 ruled that the application does not engage the court’s jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in its matter against Ramaphosa.
Ramaphosa’s lawyer Kate Hofmeyr argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited.
ALSO READ: Police say Malema ‘in a better position’ to shed light on Masemola’s arrest warrant [VIDEO]
Legal battles
However, this did not stop, and Zuma, who is renowned for pursuing legal battles, earned his actions the name “Stalingrad strategy” to take the matter to the North Gauteng High Court.
In his founding affidavit to the high court, Zuma said he is bringing the application in his personal capacity, but because the application is urgent and in the “interest of justice”, he is also deposing the papers on behalf of the MK party.
Constitutional matter
Zuma said that the present application is indisputably a constitutional matter.
Section 169(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that the High Court of South Africa may decide any constitutional matter except a matter that the Constitutional Court has agreed to hear by way of direct access or is assigned by legislation to another court of a status similar to the High Court.
In his papers, Zuma argues that in his Constitutional Court application, Ramaphosa did not contest the urgency, exclusive jurisdiction, and/or direct access.
ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should’ve started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS]
