Joe ‘Ferrari’ Sibanyoni grilled over ‘interference’ with Putco after Ramaphosa ‘confrontation’ [VIDEO]

The taxi boss had warned to the president that local operators would interfere with Putco buses if their demand were not addressed. Taxi boss Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni faced questions at the Madlanga commission on Wednesday, 30 September 2026, over his warning to President Cyril Ramaphosa that local operators would fight for themselves if they were not given a stake in bus service Putco’s routes in Mpumalanga. Sibanyoni continued his testimony at the Brigitte Mabandla Justice College in Pretoria, where he was questioned about his dealings with Putco and allegations of interference with the bus company’s operations. The businessman, who stands accused of running an extortion racket, was also pressed to explain remarks he made during a meeting with traditional leaders in January 2024, when he addressed Ramaphosa and Mineral and Petroleum Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe. Joe ‘Ferrari’ Sibanyoni explains demand for 30% of Putco routes Chief evidence leader Matthew Chaskalson played a three-minute video of the meeting, which took place in Mpumalanga. In the footage, Sibanyoni is heard urging Ramaphosa and Mantashe to help local businesses secure 30% of Putco’s routes in his home province, which he referred to as KwaNdebele. He warned that local operators would be forced to take matters into their own hands if the government failed to assist them. “When you find someone wanting to interfere with the Putco business, you must know it’s us. “Don’t put the red tape. Assist us as to how we can get into the space,” Sibanyoni remarked. Joe Sibanyoni with ANC leader, Cyril Ramaphosa and Gwede Mantashe, demanding 30% and declaring, “We will fight for ourselves.”But this won’t trend, because it’s not Julius Malema. pic.twitter.com/m16tKOONRO– Msunu ka Johann Rupert (@ZizinjaAbelungu) May 15, 2026 Explaining the remarks, Sibanyoni confirmed that members of the local business community wanted a 30% stake in Putco’s routes. According to Sibanyoni, the bus company’s managing director, Franco Pisapia, met with him and other individuals in 2023 to seek help in securing an extension of Putco’s month-to-month contract with the government. “He needed assistance from us as to how he can get an ongoing contract, unlike a month-to-month contract,” the businessman told the commission on Wednesday. Sibanyoni argued that the contract’s short-term nature made it difficult for Putco to allocate 30% of its routes to local operators because the agreement could be terminated at any time. “The business wanted to have its own buses plugged into Putco,” he testified. He denied personally demanding a share of the routes, maintaining that his involvement was on behalf of the Gijima Consortium Bus Service (GCBS), a bus operator he claimed was owned by individuals in the taxi industry. “That was a meeting where I was speaking on behalf of our community and our king. It was not just me engaging the president on my behalf as a person. It was not for myself.” Commission chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga asked whether GCBS already had buses operating on the route. Sibanyoni confirmed that it did but highlighted its fleet was “not enough”. Madlanga commission challenges meaning of ‘interference’ Chaskalson questioned Sibanyoni about his warning to Ramaphosa that local operators would interfere with Putco’s business if their demand were not addressed. Sibanyoni sought to explain that he had been referring to engagements with the company rather than any disruption of its operations. The evidence leader rejected that interpretation, highlighting the distinction between negotiating with a business and interfering with its activities. But Sibanyoni maintained that he had not intended the word “interference” to carry a negative meaning, arguing that he had already been engaging with Putco at the time. “If maybe that word of interference comes out to be the other way, we can replace it with engagement so that we allow the flow of this commission. But definitely my interference was not meant in a bad way.” Commissioner Sandile Khumalo subsequently asked what Sibanyoni would have done if Putco had rejected the request for 30% of its routes. Sibanyoni said he would have taken the matter to court, denying that he would have resorted to interfering with the company’s operations. “That’s not my way of engaging,” he said. Although he maintained that his reference to fighting for themselves meant pursuing legal action, Sibanyoni acknowledged that he had not approached the courts, even though the local business community had not secured the requested share. He testified that he had hoped further engagements would resolve the matter, adding that buses had been burned amid the discussions. Sibanyoni also confirmed that he met with the GCBS director and their associates in August 2024 to receive an update on the Putco matter. Putco reports more than 350 bus blockades Chaskalson then revealed that Putco had reported incidents in which its buses were blocked by local taxi operators between October 2024 and January 2025. According to the information provided by the company, more than 350 such incidents were recorded during that period. The commission was shown video footage of one of the blockades, which Chaskalson cited as an example of interference with Putco’s operations. Sibanyoni accepted the evidence leader’s characterisation of the conduct shown in the footage as interference but denied any association with the taxi operators involved. He argued that the vehicles in the video had Mpumalanga registration plates, whereas his taxis operating in the area carried Gauteng and Limpopo licence plates. Chaskalson challenged this explanation by referring to Sibanyoni’s earlier testimony about the taxi associations operating along Moloto Road between Kwaggafontein and Pretoria. The evidence leader reminded Sibanyoni that he had initially testified that a single taxi association operated on the route. However, Sibanyoni had since referred to five other associations. “That wasn’t your evidence when you first came,” Chaskalson said. Sibanyoni denied having previously stated that only one association operated along the route. Chaskalson then questioned why the commission should not conclude that the taxis shown blocking Putco buses were connected to Sibanyoni, given his warning to Ramaphosa about interference with the company’s operations. Sibanyoni insisted that his remarks to the president had been made on behalf of the community rather than in his personal capacity. Buying old busses Chaskalson questioned Sibanyoni about WhatsApp messages sent 36 hours after 51 Putco buses were torched. Sibanyoni had instructed his co-accused, Bafana Sindane, to engage Taxi Choice, a company owned by the South African National Taxi Council (Santaco), about acquiring 15 old buses, saying he planned to donate them to his foundation. The inquiry also heard that Taxi Choice made an unsolicited approach to Putco to buy a stake or the entire company in February 2025. Putco rejected the offer but set conditions, including a R100 million non-refundable deposit and a R2 billion cash guarantee. Sibanyoni confirmed that Taxi Choice later left the deal after accepting it could not meet the requirements. ‘Imputing impropriety’ The taxi boss also raised concerns about Chaskalson’s engagement with Putco, suggesting that the evidence leader was making the matter personal. “Me listening to him, he says now his interaction with Putco is driving this matter of Putco to personalise it so that it comes back to me.” Madlanga intervened, telling Sibanyoni that there was nothing improper about the evidence leaders consulting with Putco as part of their work at the commission. “If you are saying issues relating to Putco have nothing to do with the commission’s terms of reference, that’s something else altogether,” the chairperson said. “You are imputing impropriety if you are saying it’s now becoming personal and it’s no longer about the business of the commission, you are imputing impropriety on the part of the chief evidence leader. “I’m telling you straight to your face that that is not so. “For the evidence leader to be able to engage you on matters relating to Putco, there is nothing wrong with him or with the commission’s investigators interacting with or consulting with people from Putco. There’s nothing wrong with that at all.”