Crime Analyst Weighs In As Floyd Shivambu Faces Questions Over Failure To Report Alleged Plot To Steal State Funds

Forensic scientist and crime analyst Thabang Bogopa has weighed in on allegations that Floyd Shivambu, leader of the Afrika Mayibuye Movement (AMM), may have witnessed a meeting where members of his former political home allegedly discussed a plan to divert state funds—yet failed to report it.

Under Section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (Precca), failing to report knowledge of corrupt activities is itself a criminal offence.

Bogopa stressed that the situation is far from straightforward. “This issue is very complex, as it involves not just him in his persona but also all politicians in the country.”

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: SIU Raids In KZN And Gauteng Over Alleged R161 Million UIF COVID-19 TERS Theft

Shivambu publicly addressed the alleged meeting, insisting he had seen first-hand how officials openly discussed siphoning government money.

“I’ve sat in a meeting where, as an official item on the agenda, there was a discussion on how to steal government money,” Shivambu said. “Even figures were mentioned … that you must take this much… I’m not telling you fiction… We are not going to legitimate nonsense that pretends to be revolutionary.”

Public Backlash and Concerns Over Political Accountability

His comments sparked strong criticism from political commentator and Rise Mzansi leader Songezo Zibi, who questioned how South Africans responded to Shivambu’s revelations.

“Only in South Africa will someone confess to being part of a conspiracy to steal, didn’t report it and get cheered for it,” Zibi said. “At some point we have to examine whether it’s the politicians, who are always showing us who they really are, that are the problem.”

Author Zakes Mda echoed similar concerns, emphasising a wider national culture of impunity. “South Africa’s culture of impunity. They know that they can confess as much as they like, and even boast, but nothing will happen to them,” he said.

Legal Grey Areas and Barriers to Pursuing Culpability in Floyd Shivambu’s case

Bogopa pointed out that individuals within state institutions—such as those in the State Security Agency—routinely handle sensitive information, which complicates questions around reporting misconduct. He referenced a past example raised in an ad hoc committee to illustrate the dilemma.

“A simpler example is when a certain person mentioned in the Ad Hoc Committee that he has knowledge of the wrongdoings done by the members of parliament but still did not act! He said that if provoked, he would act,” Bogopa explained.

He added that many senior government roles are governed by Non-Disclosure Agreements, further complicating efforts to pursue corruption cases.

“Overall, harbouring a crime is unlawful; however, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas the Constitution protects everyone against self-incrimination.”

Bogopa concluded that establishing legal culpability in Shivambu’s case would be exceptionally difficult. “It will be difficult to prove all the elements of that crime in a court of law, relying on what the Individual said,” he said.

---

For More, Follow SurgeZirc SA On  Facebook, X,  Instagram and Bluesky