The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has adjourned to consider arguments by Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s legal team after his lawyers opposed the continuation of his testimony in the absence of his lead counsel.
Tensions escalated at the commission on Monday after Advocate Fatima Missi told chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga that Matlala was not comfortable proceeding without his primary counsel, Advocate Anneline van den Heever, who was absent due to ill health.
Missi said Matlala had instructed his legal team to approach the High Court for an interdict if the commission ordered him to continue testifying.
When Justice Madlanga asked what would happen if the commission ruled that Matlala must proceed with his evidence, Missi said her client’s legal team could either withdraw or seek a stand down to allow them to approach the High Court.
The confrontation followed the commission’s earlier refusal to postpone Matlala’s testimony until Tuesday.
Missi had initially asked for the matter to stand down, arguing that it would be unfair for Matlala to be questioned without his lead legal representative present.
She also raised concerns about difficulties experienced by the legal team while trying to consult with Matlala, who is being held at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre.
The legal team said access problems had affected their ability to obtain instructions and prepare their papers in an application aimed at protecting Matlala’s constitutional right against self-incrimination.
The commission, however, was not persuaded.
Evidence leader Advocate Adila Hassim argued that Matlala’s lawyers had sufficient time to prepare their application and file the required documents.
Hassim told the commission that Matlala’s affidavit was filed 45 minutes late on Saturday, while his signed affidavit was only submitted about three hours after the deadline.
She said the evidence leaders had complied with the deadlines and filed their answering affidavit and heads of argument, but had not received corresponding documents from Matlala’s legal team.
Hassim also disputed claims that the defence had been unable to consult properly with Matlala.
According to Hassim, the legal team had opportunities to consult with Matlala between Monday and Friday, and the difficulties encountered over the weekend could not explain why their heads of argument had not been filed on time.
She further argued that Matlala’s lawyers had known since March about the categories of evidence that would be put to him and could therefore have raised their constitutional concerns earlier.
Hassim opposed what she described as an attempt by Matlala to claim blanket protection from answering questions.
The dispute follows Matlala’s appearance before the commission last week when he repeatedly invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions about the controversial SAPS Medicare24 contract.
The R228 million contract, which has since been terminated, has become a major focus of the commission’s investigation into alleged corruption and criminality within the police service.
Matlala is facing criminal charges linked to the Medicare24 matter and has argued that answering certain questions before the commission could prejudice his criminal case. The commission is now being asked to determine the extent to which he can rely on that constitutional protection while giving evidence.
His testimony was brought forward from September after changes to the commission’s timetable. He first appeared before the inquiry in July, when his legal team raised concerns about access to material linked to an aborted plea and sentence agreement with the State.
Matlala had previously agreed to plead guilty and testify against police officials in exchange for a proposed sentence agreement. The deal collapsed after the Pretoria Specialised Commercial Crime Court rejected the proposed sentence arrangement and indicated that he could face a 12-year sentence rather than the effective eight years contemplated in the agreement. He is now facing trial alongside police officials implicated in the Medicare24 matter.
When Matlala eventually took the stand last week, he provided information about some of his dealings and relationships with senior police officials but refused to answer questions relating to matters for which he is criminally charged.
He denied knowing suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu and several other figures, while confirming that he had met KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. He also faced questions about his relationship with suspended Deputy National Police Commissioner Shadrack Sibiya and other senior police officials.
Monday’s proceedings were also complicated by newly disclosed documents. Although Matlala’s application for a postponement was rejected, the commission allowed him time to familiarise himself with the new material before he is questioned about its contents.
The commission is now considering the legal arguments presented by both sides.
The outcome could determine whether Matlala continues answering questions on Monday or whether his legal team is allowed to approach the High Court to challenge the continuation of his testimony.
The proceedings are being closely watched because Matlala’s evidence is expected to shed further light on allegations surrounding the Medicare24 tender and his alleged relationships with senior police officials.
The Madlanga Commission is investigating allegations of criminality, corruption and political interference within South Africa’s criminal justice system.
