Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s appearance before the Madlanga Commission was again dominated by a dispute over his legal representation and his right against self-incrimination.
The inquiry was forced to navigate a tense legal standoff on Monday after Matlala’s lawyers raised concerns about proceeding without his lead counsel, Advocate Annaline van den Heever, while also seeking more time to prepare arguments on his constitutional right not to give potentially self-incriminating evidence.
The commission ultimately refused a lengthy postponement and directed that the application be argued after a shorter adjournment to allow Matlala to consult with his legal team. Chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga indicated that the legal issues could largely be addressed by counsel without extensive further consultation.
But the dispute escalated when Advocate Fatima Missi told the commission that Matlala had instructed his entire legal team to withdraw if he was required to continue without Van den Heever.
“We are ordered to withdraw as Matlala representatives,” Missi told the inquiry.
Van den Heever was absent from Monday’s proceedings because she was unwell. Missi said the defence had also experienced difficulties consulting with Matlala at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre, where he is being held.
The legal team warned that it could approach the High Court for an urgent interdict if Matlala was compelled to proceed without what it regarded as proper representation.
However, the commission pressed ahead, with evidence leader Advocate Adila Hassim arguing that Missi could represent Matlala in Van den Heever’s absence.
Hassim also challenged the timing and scope of the self-incrimination application, saying Matlala’s legal team had known since March about the broad areas of evidence the commission intended to put to him.
“This application could have been brought much sooner. All of the time that was available to Mr Matlala’s legal team extends over months, not over days,” Hassim argued.
She further opposed what she described as an attempt to claim broad or “blanket immunity” from questioning.
The dispute comes against the backdrop of Matlala’s repeated refusal to answer questions at the commission on matters that overlap with criminal investigations and pending court proceedings.
On Monday, he again relied on his right against self-incrimination when questioned about his alleged relationships with senior police officials and other matters under investigation.
Matlala also challenged KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi to produce a recording of a meeting between the two men, saying it could provide clarity on what was discussed.
Matlala has previously acknowledged meeting Mkhwanazi at a Durban hotel, but has declined to discuss certain details of the encounter, citing the risk of incriminating himself.
The commission has also questioned Matlala about his relationship with suspended deputy police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya, among other senior police figures. He has similarly declined to answer some questions relating to those relationships.
The self-incrimination dispute is particularly significant because Matlala is facing separate criminal proceedings linked to the controversial Medicare24 contract with the South African Police Service.
The R360 million SAPS health-services contract is the subject of criminal charges in a separate matter, while Matlala is also facing an attempted murder trial in the Johannesburg High Court. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges in that case.
Matlala first appeared before the commission on August 17 after his testimony, originally scheduled for September, was brought forward. During that appearance, he repeatedly refused to answer questions about the Medicare24 contract and related dealings, saying the matters were before the courts.
The commission is investigating allegations of criminality, corruption and political interference within the criminal justice system, following allegations that the country’s law-enforcement agencies have been compromised.
Matlala’s testimony was scheduled to continue on Tuesday, with the commission still required to work through his application concerning self-incrimination.
The legal confrontation on Monday therefore did not end the dispute, but instead set the stage for another day of questioning over what Matlala can be required to answer while criminal proceedings against him remain pending.
