By Marcus Moloko
The controversy surrounding alleged cosmetic surgery payments within the South African Police Service (SAPS) has taken centre stage in Parliament, with Acting Deputy National Commissioner Hilda Khosi Senthumule forcefully denying claims that businessman Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala funded her procedure.
The allegations, first aired by suspended Lieutenant General Shadrack Sibiya at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, have now escalated into a battle of credibility, legal threats, and questions of integrity under oath.
ALSO READ: Lamola warns SADC of Middle East economic shocks
This week, Senthumule appeared before Parliament’s ad hoc committee to address the claims.
She confirmed that she underwent a body contouring procedure in October 2023, but rejected Sibiya’s assertion that it was a Brazilian Butt Lift (BBL) financed by Matlala.
“I paid for the surgery myself,” she told MPs.
She claimed to have submitted bank statements to corroborate her testimony and described the allegations as malicious and unfounded.
Senthumule stood up and twirled before the ad hoc committee, while referring to her procedure as a national asset, a tongue-in-cheek nod to the public fascination that surrounded speculation.
The allegation began when Sibiya testified before the Madlanga Commission. He alleged that Senthumule’s recovery period, where she was unable to sit for three months, was never disclosed to police management.
He argued this constituted a conflict of interest, given the alleged funding by Matlala.
Sibiya’s testimony painted Matlala as a shadowy benefactor, suggesting the businessman had cultivated influence within SAPS by financing personal expenses of senior officials.
However, Matlala himself has categorically denied ever paying for Senthumule’s surgery or any official’s medical procedures.
While Sibiya insists Matlala bankrolled the alleged BBL, both Senthumule and Matlala deny any financial involvement. This contradiction leaves Parliament and the public grappling with a critical question: who lied under oath?
If Sibiya fabricated his testimony, he faces potential perjury charges. If Senthumule’s denial proves false, she risks not only criminal liability but also the collapse of her credibility as one of SAPS’s top leaders.
ALSO READ: ANC KZN waits for Luthuli House directive on possible MK Party talks
Senthumule’s submission of bank statements remains a key piece of evidence, but questions remain about whether independent verification will be conducted.
Senthumule’s “national asset” quip may have lightened the mood, but it also highlighted the extent to which the scandal has blurred lines between serious governance and public spectacle.
The clash of narratives remains, where a BBL, a denial, and Matlala in the middle have left South Africans asking: who told the truth, and who lied under oath?
