Marcus Moloko
Parliament’s ad hoc committee probing alleged political interference and criminal infiltration of the justice system is racing towards the November 28 deadline to finalise its report into the claims, first made by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
All eyes could soon be on jailed tenderpreneur Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala, who is expected to appear before the committee in the coming weeks, but criminal defence attorney William Booth has asked, at what cost?
Matlala’s name surfaced during a July 6 media briefing by Mkhwanazi, who alleged that senior officials and politicians were linked to Matlala and were receiving payments from him.
While some of those claims by Mkhwanazi were withdrawn, the damage was done. But Matlala is still viewed as a crucial piece in the puzzle of allegations of bribery and corruption.
His potential testimony could provide the key that helps untangle the mess within the upper echelons of the South African Police Service.
Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson, Soviet Lekganyane, has confirmed that the committee will submit a report to the National Assembly speaker, Thoko Didiza, detailing the work done by the committee, while also advocating for an extension beyond the November 28 cut-off.
The committee has confirmed it will call Matlala to testify.
Matlala is currently detained at the Kgosi Mampuru Maximum Security Prison as he awaits trial for attempted murder, among other charges.
Speaking on the logistics regarding Matlala, Lekganyane said the Department of Correctional Services, as the authority with custodianship of Matlala, would make arrangements to ensure his availability.
Booth, speaking on the podcast Cape Talk, about Matlala’s potential appearance at the committee, asked: At what cost would Matlala’s appearance be accepted?
Booth questioned whether it made sense to call Matlala to the committee, as Matlala was currently on trial for conspiracy to commit murder.
Matlala’s testimony will either corroborate or contradict key claims made under oath, potentially shifting the trajectory of the final ad hoc report.
Booth raised a concern: Matlala may be unwilling to incriminate himself any further.
He suggested that unless Matlala was offered some form of legal deal or immunity, his testimony may be limited or evasive.
This then raised the question: Was it worth spending millions of taxpayer money on security, logistics, and legal protection for a witness who may say very little, or simply lie?
INSIDE POLITICS