A video circulating on social media shows a group of people confronting and assaulting a man who is alleged to have been involved in a hijacking.
The footage shows the man being confronted on a public road before several people surround him.
The man can be seen moving along the roadway while members of the group approach him. The confrontation then becomes physical, with the man being taken to the ground as several people surround him.
The assault continues while vehicles can be seen travelling along the road.
The video was shared on social media with a warning about its violent content and has since circulated among users.
Alleged hijacking not independently confirmed
The social-media post accompanying the footage describes the man as a hijacker. However, there is currently no verified information confirming his identity or establishing that he had committed a hijacking.
The footage itself shows the confrontation and assault but does not show what happened before the recording began.
It is therefore unclear from the video alone how the man came to be confronted, whether a hijacking had taken place, or what role the man allegedly played in any crime.
It is also not clear from the available footage whether police attended the scene, whether the man was arrested afterwards, or whether anyone involved in the assault was taken into custody.
Vigilante attacks remain a concern
The incident comes amid continued concerns over vigilante violence in South Africa, where community members sometimes take matters into their own hands when they believe someone has been involved in criminal activity.
In some cases, these confrontations have resulted in serious injuries and deaths.
Police have repeatedly warned members of the public against taking the law into their own hands, stressing that people suspected of committing crimes should be reported to law enforcement and dealt with through the criminal justice system.
A person accused of a crime remains a suspect until the allegations against them are established through the appropriate legal process.
This is particularly important when incidents are recorded and shared on social media. Short videos often show only part of an incident and may not provide enough information to establish what happened before the recording started.
What the video shows
The footage available from this incident shows a man being confronted by a group on a public road before he is physically assaulted.
The video does not establish the circumstances that led to the confrontation or independently verify the allegation that the man was responsible for a hijacking.
Further information from police or other reliable sources would be required to establish the man’s identity, the circumstances surrounding the alleged hijacking and whether any arrests or criminal proceedings followed.
Man allegedly linked to hijacking confronted and assaulted by group pic.twitter.com/HpQAxfwiXd
— PrimeTime News (@PrimeTimeNewsZA) October 2, 2026
For now, the video provides evidence of the roadside assault, while the circumstances that allegedly led to it remain unconfirmed.
Suspended top police official faces court claims of threats against teen’s father amid sexual offences bail hearing
Suspended Deputy National Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Shadrack Sibiya allegedly told the father of a 16-year-old girl that it could take him a minute to wipe out the man and his family. The claim emerged during Sibiya’s formal bail application at the Randburg Magistrate’s Court on Thursday, 1 October 2026.
Investigating officer Detective Sergeant Nokukhanya Ndlovu testified that the father, referred to in court as Mr M and a former bodyguard of Sibiya, opened the criminal case. According to Ndlovu, after Sibiya learned of the case, he telephoned Mr M and said words to the effect of: “What are you doing, do you know it can take a minute to wipe you and your family out?” She said Sibiya also referred to having bought food for Mr M, supported him, and described him as the easiest person to deal with if anyone needed handling. Mr M interpreted the remarks as a threat, Ndlovu told the court.
Sibiya, 59, faces five charges. These include the sexual grooming of the 16-year-old (three counts), rape of an 18-year-old woman, and human trafficking related to the alleged sexual exploitation of three people. An additional firearm-related charge was added after a gun was allegedly found in his vehicle when he was arrested on 21 September 2026 at The Grand Club in Sandton. He is being held at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre. The state is opposing bail, arguing there is a likelihood he would endanger the safety of others or interfere with the investigation and witnesses.
The state alleges that between 20 July and 3 August 2026, Sibiya exchanged WhatsApp messages with the 16-year-old after her father provided her contact details to arrange transport. Communications allegedly became sexual. Ndlovu said Sibiya asked whether the girl was sexually active, sent her nude photographs of herself that she had never shared with anyone, asked her to send videos of herself masturbating, told her not to tell anyone about their exchanges, discouraged her from dating others, and said she should allow only him to have her. One alleged exchange involved a multi-minute explicit video to which Sibiya responded positively and requested more. The girl had saved his number as “Ntate Sibiya.”
Sibiya has denied the grooming allegations. In his account, Mr M invited him to a braai, asked him to collect his daughter, and later forwarded an explicit video of her that he said he had received from an unknown source. Sibiya claimed Mr M also told him the teenager had a crush on him and that he confronted her about it. He maintains he never had a sexual relationship with her and that the charges are unfounded or trumped up.
On the rape charge, the state alleges that on 16 May 2026 Sibiya took the 18-year-old and others to a Sandton venue, provided alcohol, and later at a hotel the complainant became heavily intoxicated and lost consciousness. Sibiya is accused of raping her while she was in that state. Witnesses are expected to testify that he later remarked that she had been a virgin and made other comments. The complainant is said to have experienced pain and noticed blood afterwards. She delayed reporting because of Sibiya’s rank and position, according to the investigating officer.
Sibiya has admitted sexual contact with the 18-year-old but insists it was consensual. He said he met her at a hotel with her friends, found the group highly intoxicated, left, and returned the next day after Mr M invited him back because the women wanted to see him again. He claims subsequent contact occurred and that she expressed interest in meeting again, though no further meeting took place.
Ndlovu also outlined other alleged intimidation. On 19 September, a day after the matter became a criminal investigation, an unknown person telephoned Mr M while pretending to be the investigating officer and asked whether he had opened the case. A police officer described as close to Sibiya later called Mr M and asked: “Are you going to stand for what you have started?” After Sibiya’s arrest, a recording was played in court of a call from Bishop Azwihangwi Maumela, described as an ally, to Mr M. In it Maumela referred to the 18-year-old complainant and said he thought Mr M knew the girl so they could sit down with her. Maumela had earlier told media that “we will retaliate,” a statement he later withdrew. Sibiya has distanced himself from Maumela. The defence has disputed any interference by Sibiya or his family and submitted material challenging aspects of Mr M’s reliability.
Ndlovu further informed the court that the two young complainants have repeatedly sent messages indicating fear for their lives or thoughts of suicide. Witness protection has been engaged, but placement has been delayed because the girls are writing examinations. Families are currently managing safety arrangements, with protection expected later in October once exams conclude. Ndlovu described the case against Sibiya as strong, citing WhatsApp evidence, cellphone records, eyewitness accounts and other material. She linked the opposition to bail to broader concerns about violence against women and children in South Africa.
Sibiya’s legal team is contesting the state’s version of events and the risk assessments. The bail application, which began earlier in the week, continued on Thursday and was postponed to Friday, 2 October 2026, for further proceedings. No decision on bail had been delivered by the end of Thursday’s sitting. All allegations remain unproven and will be tested at trial if the matter proceeds.
