By Johnathan Paoli
The Madlanga Commission resumed on Friday with further delays in the anticipated testimony of North West businessman and ANC member Suleiman Carrim, following a lengthy exchange over his preparedness to take the stand.
Proceedings opened with chief evidence leader Matthew Chaskalson confirming that the commission had received a postponement application from Carrim, whose urgent South Gauteng High Court bid to avoid testifying was dismissed on Thursday.
Advocate Kameel Premhid appeared for Carrim.
Madlanga opened with a pointed aside, telling him that the commission had its “knives out” for him because they mistakenly believed he was late, only to discover that “Premhid and his client were waiting in a holding area”.
Chaskalson stated the commission was not opposing Carrim’s application, explaining that it had originally proposed that he testify on 26 and 27 February, dates that were no longer feasible because Carrim’s attorney would be on pilgrimage to Mecca.
He instead proposed 9 and 10 March, with a witness statement due 3 March.
Madlanga pressed for deeper context.
“A postponement cannot be there for the asking,” he said, instructing Chaskalson to outline the history of Carrim’s preparedness.
Chaskalson responded that Carrim and his attorneys had been given “a bulky set of documents” on Thursday, but emphasised that although bulky, “these documents…relate to the same subject matter”.
Premhid said Carrim had since provided an affidavit to the commission.
He stated that despite receiving bundles of 2 000-page and 4 000-page documents, Carrim only discovered on Thursday that 77 pages were relevant to the questions he would face.
ALSO READ: Officer named at Madlanga Commission allegedly targeted in hit – Inside Politic
Madlanga interjected, reminding him that the South Gauteng High Court had found on Thursday that Carrim and his lawyers were “obstructive” in their dealings with the commission in an effort to avoid testifying.
Premhid replied that “the judge is entitled to make such findings”, insisting that Carrim’s legal team had merely sought clarity on which documents were relevant.
He argued that it was only on Thursday that the commission provided the 77 key pages.
Premhid stressed that Carrim’s legal team were “seeking to prevent him from being ambushed”.
“They always accepted that he needed to testify, but just wanted him to be prepared,” he added.
Madlanga probed whether another attorney could assist during the pilgrimage period, prompting a lengthy discussion over diary availability.
He questioned whether Carrim’s statement could be filed earlier, suggesting 27 February.
Premhid proposed filing on 2 March, drawing firm pushback from Commissioner Sesi Baloyi.
“All the legal teams that appear before the commission are busy,” she said.
Premhid conceded and accepted 27 February.
Chaskalson defended his team, stating that Carrim’s lawyers had shown “an obstructive attitude” and had refused to meet the commission’s attorneys.
It was “wholly incorrect”, he said, to argue that the dispute would have been resolved earlier had the 77 pages been provided sooner.
Madlanga ordered Carrim’s evidence be postponed to 9 and 10 March, with his statement to be provided by 27 February.
The commission continues, with Brigadier Rachel Matjeng on her relationship with Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala.
Meanwhile, Chaskalson announced that two further days would be needed for Witness F, and that this evidence will resume on 16 and 17 February, with Madlanga excusing Witness F until then.
INSIDE POLITICS