By Johnathan Paoli
A tense exchange broke out at the Madlanga Commission on Tuesday after commission chairperson Mbuyiseli Madlanga rebuked Advocate Rafik Bhana SC, acting for ANC-linked North West businessman Suleiman Carrim, for suggesting he had “prejudged” a bid to delay proceedings.
The clash came after the commission refused a bid by Carrim’s legal team to halt proceedings so they could prepare a formal postponement application following the emergence of new undisclosed financial material.
ALSO READ: Ad-hoc committee calls on suspended Intelligence Inspector-General Imtiaz Fazel to testify
Instead, the commission granted Carrim and his lawyers limited time to consult before proceedings resumed.
The ruling followed Monday’s decision by Madlanga to dismiss Carrim’s application to testify in-camera. Carrim had sought a private hearing, citing threats to his safety.
Tensions flared early on Tuesday when Bhana said the defence wanted more time after receiving an early-morning email from the commission’s investigators flagging additional financial transactions for scrutiny.
But Madlanga said the commission had considered both the submissions from Carrim’s legal team and those from the evidence leader, and decided to allow Carrim and his lawyers time to consult instead.
ALSO READ: Madlanga Commission: Carrim says he lent Maumela R500,000 after request from ‘Cat’ Matlala
He said the issues raised would be postponed to a later date, while the remainder of the matter would stand down until about noon for consultation.
Bhana said the team was notified at 6 am that investigators had uncovered two additional payments Carrim allegedly made to Medicare24.
Medicare24 is owned by tenderpreneur and alleged underworld figure Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala. It was awarded a controversial R360 million SAPS tender in 2024 that was later cancelled over allegations of fraud and corruption.
Carrim has denied that payments he received from Medicare24 were kickbacks, telling the commission on Monday the money he received was for a R10 million investment he made in the company.
Bhana asked on Tuesday that proceedings stand down until midday to prepare the postponement application.
ALSO READ: Danikas alleges Booysen ran Cato Manor unit ‘like a godfather’
However, evidence leader Advocate Matthew Chaskalson SC opposed the request, telling the commission he had personally identified the transactions while reviewing bank statements earlier that morning.
“I was going through the Medicare bank statements at 5am this morning, looking to see what SAPS inflows were there to interrogate the version of Mr Carrim in relation to the terms of his loan agreement and the idea that he was going to get 10% of all SAPS inflows, but he had waived all of that,” Chaskalson said.
“I wanted to see how much money he had waived. While I was looking for that purpose, I stumbled across the fact that there were two substantial payments from Tasmica Construction, another company of Mr Carrim, into Medicare 24, which he didn’t mention in his statement,” he added.
Chaskalson said the records showed payments totalling more than R2 million from Tasmica Construction to Medicare24.
He rejected claims that the bank statements had been withheld from the defence.
When Bhana said that there was no malicious intent in not disclosing the payments, Chaskalson protested, saying there was no “innocent explanation” for the non-disclosure.
Chaskalson added that the timing of document disclosure was a consequence of Carrim’s own delays, namely that he filed his statement late, did not disclose the payments in question, and did not disclose the fact that he had had sight of the bank transactions to Medicare24.
ALSO READ: Julius Mkhwanazi’s Madlanga Commission return moved to late March
“If he had honestly performed his obligations in any one of those three respects, they would have had these bank statements more than a week ago. So, they can’t complain about getting them now,” he said.
Bhana countered that Carrim had not been specifically required by summons to disclose the additional payments and therefore could not be faulted.
Commissioner Sesi Baloyi said: “I would have expected that a witness would have wanted to assist the commission by disclosing issues relevant to its investigation that it might not know.”
The exchange grew more heated when Madlanga asked Bhana how much consultation time he would require if the commission was not inclined to adjourn for a postponement application.
“If…our inclination is to give you time to consult, what time would you suggest? Mr Chaskalson has suggested 45 minutes to an hour. What would you suggest?” Madlanga asked.
Bhana replied that they would need two hours, but added that he believed Madlanga had “prejudged the application”.
Madlanga said he took exception to the accusation.
“Engaging counsel has nothing to do with matters being prejudged and you know that. I take very strong exception to that attitude. In fact, I find it unprofessional for you to say that I have prejudged issues purely because I’m engaging you,” he said.
Following a brief adjournment, Bhana returned with an unconditional retraction.
“[My] apology is unconditional,” he said.
Madlanga accepted the apology, and the commission stood the matter down until 11:45 for consultation.