By Thapelo Molefe
The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has ruled that it will proceed with alleged underworld figure Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s application this afternoon challenging the questions he may be required to answer, despite his lawyers asking for more time to prepare.
Commission chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga made the ruling on Monday after Matlala’s legal team asked for the matter to stand down until Tuesday so they could finalise a replying affidavit and heads of argument.
“Having considered everything that has been presented to the commission, my decision is to go ahead to hear Mr Matlala’s application,” Madlanga said.
The decision followed submissions from Matlala’s legal team about difficulties they said they had experienced while consulting with him at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre, as well as concerns about meeting the Commission’s deadlines.
Advocate Fatima Missi, representing Matlala, told the Commission that if the matter proceeded without giving the legal team more time to prepare, the entire team, including counsel and attorneys, could withdraw from representing Matlala.
ALSO READ: Hill-Lewis says ANC can’t be trusted to ‘fix what it has broken’
Missi said the team, including counsel and attorneys, would not be able to properly represent Matlala under the circumstances.
However, when Madlanga asked Matlala directly whether he had instructed his lawyers to withdraw if the application proceeded on Monday, he appeared uncertain.
“I’m actually in the dark now,” Matlala told the Commission.
He said he had discussed possible scenarios with his lawyers but had not been given enough time to decide how he wanted to proceed.
Commissioner Advocate Sesi Baloyi SC questioned the apparent contradiction, saying Missi had presented the possible withdrawal as an instruction from Matlala, while Matlala himself indicated that he had not made a final decision.
“That’s deeply problematic,” Baloyi said.
The Commission later adjourned for lunch until 2pm, when Matlala’s lawyers are expected to clarify whether they will continue representing him and proceed with the application.
The dispute centres on an application in which Matlala’s legal team is seeking to assert certain constitutional rights, including his right against self-incrimination, in relation to questions he may face during his testimony.
Earlier on, evidence leader Advocate Adila Hassim told the Commission that Matlala’s founding affidavit had been filed 45 minutes late and that his legal team had still not filed its replying affidavit or heads of argument by the deadline.
Hassim argued that the lawyers had been given sufficient time to prepare and that the application largely involved legal questions rather than matters requiring extensive consultation with Matlala.
“They’ve known this since at least March of this year,” Hassim said, referring to the categories of evidence Matlala could be questioned about.
Missi disputed this, saying the legal team had faced significant challenges accessing Matlala at the correctional facility.
She described lengthy security procedures, restrictions on the use of cellphones and difficulties moving documents between the lawyers and Matlala.
She said these issues had affected the team’s ability to prepare the necessary papers.
Missi also told the Commission that Matlala’s lead counsel, Annelene Van den Heever, had fallen ill and was unable to appear.
ALSO READ: Tributes pour in for outspoken eThekwini DA councillor Welekazi Sibiya
“We beg this commission, humbly so, to consider all the elements that we consistently have to deal with to try and ensure that we represent Mr Matlala,” Missi said.
Madlanga questioned why extensive consultation with Matlala was necessary if the application primarily concerned legal questions.
“I don’t understand this issue of agonising over how, when to consult Mr Matlala with regard to a replying affidavit,” he said.
Hassim also rejected the argument that the legal team needed additional time to research the relevant law.
She said the evidence leaders had already set out the applicable legal principles in their answering affidavit and referred to Constitutional Court judgments dealing with the privilege against self-incrimination and the effect of pending legal proceedings on ongoing inquiries.
The Commission was also told that Matlala’s attorneys had asked the evidence leaders to identify the questions they intended to put to him.
Hassim said the evidence leaders had responded that, unless the commissioners ruled otherwise, they did not consider any questions relevant to the Commission’s terms of reference to be impermissible.
Madlanga described the request for the evidence leaders to identify the questions they intended to ask Matlala as “very strange”.
The immediate dispute is separate from the substance of Matlala’s expected testimony, which is expected to resume once the Commission has dealt with his application.
At his previous appearance, Matlala repeatedly refused to answer questions about the R228-million Medicare24 tender, invoking his right against self-incrimination.
He is also expected to face questions about his alleged links to the criminal underworld and his interactions with senior police officials.
