By Johnathan Paoli
The Madlanga Commission resumed on Wednesday with Witness F facing sustained questioning over his role as an intermediary between Deputy National Police Commissioner Shadrack Sibiya, businessman Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala, and Gauteng Organised Crime boss Richard Shibiri.
The session illuminated a pattern of private meetings, message exchanges, and the circulation of official police documents that sharply contradict the limited-contact narrative advanced by Sibiya in earlier testimony.
Sibiya previously told the commission that he had met Matlala “five times or fewer”, emphasising that their engagement related only to administrative assistance around a lease confirmation for Matlala’s later-invalidated R360-million police health-services tender.
He insisted their relationship was “very limited” and that there was no ongoing personal association.
“I would receive messages from both of them looking for one another, but I did not know the finer details of their relationship,” Witness F said.
But Witness F’s WhatsApp records suggest a more active line of communication.
Chief evidence leader Matthew Chaskalson began the morning by tabling messages from 14 September 2024, in which Sibiya wrote: “Ask Cat to make a turn.”
Witness F replied that he had already spoken to Matlala, who “promised to come around 20h00.”
ALSO READ: NUMSA Spokesperson Phakamile Hlubi-Majola resigns, citing death threats
That meeting, which Witness F now claims was a “thanksgiving ceremony” at Sibiya’s house, also included Shibiri, a figure who has been named in both the commission and Parliament’s ad-hoc committee.
When pressed, Witness F could not explain why Sibiya would summon Matlala via an intermediary for a private event, nor why he later informed Shibiri of Matlala’s arrival.
Commissioner Sesi Baloyi blasted his explanation as “not candid”.
The commission juxtaposed this evidence with testimony from Witnesses A and B regarding Shibiri’s conduct in the Armand Swart murder investigation, including a meeting during which Shibiri allegedly stated that “three envelopes” were available to secure bail for the suspects.
ALSO READ: This is what O’ Sullivan will tell the ad hoc committee when he testifies about SAPS ‘capture’
Witness B said she was “shocked” to learn from cellphone extraction records that Matlala had a line of communication with Shibiri.
The inquiry then turned to a separate set of WhatsApp exchanges involving blogger Musa Khawula, whose posts about Matlala triggered an extraordinary chain of events.
On 21 October 2024, Sibiya allegedly instructed Witness F to send Matlala a warrant of arrest for Khawula, issued for alleged Cybercrimes Act violations, because Matlala “knows where Khawula hangs out”.
Witness F complied, saying he “saw no issue”.
Chaskalson challenged this, pointing out that Matlala, a civilian, had no legal authority to execute an arrest.
The commission stressed the gravity of giving official warrants to a private businessman, particularly when Witness F could give no coherent explanation for how Matlala was meant to assist.
Baloyi noted that Witness F had repeatedly forwarded police documents to civilians in ways wholly inconsistent with lawful procedure.
The timeline further undermined Witness F’s account: he claimed he received a weekend call to urgently effect Khawula’s arrest, yet the warrant was issued on a Monday.
When confronted, he adjusted his version but continued to insist that a weekend event formed part of the planned arrest operation.
The commission also questioned why a Hawks officer and a “tracking team” were deployed to arrest a blogger.
Adding to the complexity, Witness F confirmed that Matlala contacted him about “rectifying” his court papers to downplay his association with Sibiya after media sent queries to Sibiya.
In messages forwarded through Witness F, Matlala expressed concern that his description of Sibiya assisting with tender-related permissions made it appear the two were “very close”, despite evidence that Matlala attended private functions at Sibiya’s home.
The session closed with scrutiny of payments from Matlala’s security company to Witness F, including R20 000 in October 2023 and R5 000 in May 2024.
Witness F insisted these were reimbursements for arranging motorcycle “entertainment” or jet-ski repairs, but Chaskalson said the proximity of these transfers to discussions about fitting “lights and sirens” to Matlala’s convoy “does not convince”.
The commission adjourned with Chaskalson indicating that further cross-examination of Witness F will depend on developments in businessman Suliman Carrim’s urgent court bid to halt aspects of the inquiry.
INSIDE POLITICS