Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s legal team threatened to walk out of the Madlanga Commission and raised the prospect of urgent High Court action on Monday after the inquiry refused to postpone proceedings because his lead counsel was absent.
The confrontation erupted as the commission considered Matlala’s application to invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination. His lead advocate, Anneline van den Heever, was absent because of illness, while his lawyers also complained about difficulties consulting him at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre.
Advocate Fatima Missi initially told commission chair Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga that Matlala was uncomfortable proceeding without Van den Heever and indicated that his legal team could withdraw or seek an interdict from the High Court if the inquiry compelled him to continue.
Withdrawal threat sparks tense exchange
The dispute centred on whether Matlala and his lawyers had been given sufficient opportunity to prepare arguments over his refusal to answer questions that he believes could expose him to criminal prosecution.
Missi argued that difficulties consulting Matlala in C-Max prison had hampered preparations. The legal team had also sought additional time because of Van den Heever’s absence.
The commission rejected the request to delay proceedings until Tuesday and instead ordered that arguments concerning Matlala’s claim to privilege against self-incrimination proceed after a shorter adjournment.
Evidence leader Advocate Adila Hassim challenged the defence’s explanation for its late preparation, arguing that Matlala’s lawyers had opportunities to consult him during the previous week and had known for months about the categories of evidence that would be put to him.
There was, however, some uncertainty over whether Matlala had definitively instructed his lawyers to withdraw. SABC News reported that when he was questioned directly about the issue, Matlala said he had not yet decided whether his legal representatives should leave the proceedings.
Matlala invokes right against self-incrimination
The legal battle comes as Matlala faces questioning over his alleged relationships with senior police officials and matters connected to the controversial Medicare24 police contract.
On Monday, Matlala refused to answer some questions concerning his relationship with suspended deputy national police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya, saying he was a suspect in an Independent Directorate Against Corruption investigation relating to their interactions.
He told the commission he understood investigators were examining allegations that he gave impalas to Sibiya in exchange for assistance connected to the Medicare24 contract. These allegations remain unproven.
Matlala similarly declined to discuss aspects of his dealings with suspended Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department deputy head Julius Mkhwanazi and former police minister Bheki Cele, citing ongoing investigations and the possibility of incriminating himself.
Commission challenges Matlala to identify legal risks
Matlala first gave evidence before the commission on 17 August, when he repeatedly relied on his right against self-incrimination while being questioned about Medicare24 and alleged police-related dealings.
He maintained that invoking the privilege should not be interpreted as an attempt to obstruct the inquiry or a refusal to cooperate.
On Monday, the commission heard legal arguments over the extent to which Matlala could rely on the privilege. His lawyers were pressed to identify the specific offences or potential prosecutions they feared could arise from answers he might give.
The commission is investigating allegations of criminality, political interference and corruption within South Africa’s criminal justice system. Allegations aired before the inquiry are not findings of guilt and remain subject to testing.
Discover more from Telly Africa
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
