By Johnathan Paoli
A heated exchange erupted at the Madlanga Commission on Tuesday as evidence leader Mahlape Sello and Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s advocate, Annelene van den Heever, clashed over the legal basis for questioning the controversial tenderpreneur about recordings and his constitutional rights.
As Matlala’s testimony resumed for a second consecutive day on Tuesday morning, the confrontation began when Sello questioned Matlala about recordings allegedly made during his interactions with police in December 2024 and following his arrest in May 2025.
ALSO READ: Shinga says ‘gloves are off’ in battle for soul of National Freedom Party
Matlala’s legal team has been challenging the commission during his testimony, claiming that he could not answer certain questions related to allegations of fraud and corruption because of pending criminal cases.
Sello told Matlala that her understanding was that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) had assured him that he was not being investigated in relation to the recordings, meaning he could no longer rely on his status as a potential suspect to refuse to answer questions.
Van den Heever immediately challenged that.
“Maybe my learned friend can just direct me to where she gets this information from, this assurance that she refers to, and what does it exactly relate to?” she asked.
She wanted clarity on whether the alleged assurance applied to all the recordings, including one which Matlala’s lawyers claimed had been unlawfully made when he was approached in prison without his attorneys’ knowledge.
Sello responded: “I’ve posed the question to the witness, and the witness will answer my question. If Advocate Van den Heever is interested in what I intend to have for lunch, it’s a conversation we will have outside. She’s not going to pre-empt my line of questioning,” she said.
Van den Heever shot back: “When you pose questions to witnesses, you need to have a basis on which you make a certain statement. It’s not necessary to become aggressive about it. I simply am here to do my job.”
ALSO READ: Matlala tells Madlanga Commission why Sibiya questioned him about Boshoga kidnapping
Van den Heever said that without knowing the factual foundation for Sello’s questions, Matlala risked being “caught” by statements whose basis had not been established.
Commission chairperson Mbuyiseli Madlanga then intervened, attempting to steer the dispute back to the commission’s previous discussion of Matlala’s reliance on the privilege against self-incrimination.
Madlanga reminded the parties that Matlala could not make a blanket claim of privilege.
Referring to the Constitutional Court’s 2021 judgment in the Zondo Commission’s case against former president Jacob Zuma, he said there had to be specificity about the crime in respect of which the privilege was being claimed and the basis on which the privilege was being asserted.
“It cannot be broad, it cannot be generalised, it cannot be blanket,” Madlanga said.
ALSO READ: Hill-Lewis says ANC can’t be trusted to ‘fix what it has broken’
He urged Sello to ask specific questions about individual recordings rather than questioning Matlala about recordings generally.
Madlanga later warned that he would not allow Matlala to simply refuse to discuss the recordings by saying he was being investigated.
“He will, in accordance with paragraph 109 of the Constitutional Court judgment, have to specify a crime for us to have a better idea as to the basis upon which the privilege is being asserted,” he said.
Van den Heever questioned whether the commission’s position was that Matlala could rely only on the statutory protection against self-incrimination, or whether he could invoke other constitutional rights.
“The only question that I’m seeking clarification from you on at this point in time is if it is the commission’s stance that the only rights … that Mr Matlala can seek to enforce is the right against self-incrimination,” she said.
She said that the Constitution provided rights extending beyond the protections contained in the legislation governing commissions of inquiry.
Madlanga told Van den Heever to raise the constitutional argument in relation to a specific question put to Matlala, allowing the commission to determine how the particular constitutional right arose.
Matlala and his co-accused face 25 charges, including 11 counts of attempted murder linked to three alleged shooting incidents, as well as charges including conspiracy to commit murder, fraud, money laundering, and defeating the ends of justice.
ALSO READ: Partnership with business sharpens its focus on faster, inclusive growth
In addition, Matlala is charged in a separate case over allegations of fraud, corruption and contraventions of the Public Finance Management Act surrounding the allegedly irregular awarding of an approximately R228 million SAPS occupational health and wellness contract to Matlala’s Medicare24 Tshwane District company in 2024. The tender had been budgeted at about R360 million.
The commission continues.
