Matlala dodges Madlanga questions to avoid ‘self-incrimination’

The much-anticipated appearance of Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala before the Madlanga commission took an unexpected turn when he revoked his right not to self-incriminate in response to several questions posed to him.

The right against self-incrimination is contained in section 35 of the constitution and protects an individual against giving self-incriminating evidence.

Matlala appeared at the commission on Monday, and among the first questions that he refused to answer were to give details about the R228m SAPS tender which was cancelled after it was discovered to have been awarded to him fraudulently.

Responding to the question contained in the subpoena from the commission to give more details about the tender, Matlala said that he is facing criminal charges as a result of the same matter.

“I don’t wish to give evidence that may lead to self-incrimination, and therefore I claim the privilege against self-incrimination,” he said.

The question related to allegations that he bought Lt- Gen Shadrack Sibiya, a former Hawks boss, 20 impalas and whether he had offered him any gratification. Matlala refused to answer, stating that he is disputing the recording that contained the allegations.

The police recording was allegedly done during the raid of his home, and the state alleges that in it he claimed to have done favours for Sibiya.

Undeterred by his lack of co-operation, the commissioners allowed Matlala to continue to avoid answering questions despite them showing dissatisfaction with his responses.

During the proceedings, Matlala’s counsel, Adv Annelene van den Heever, and evidence leader Adv Mahlape Sello, had an intense exchange when Sello attempted to push beyond the self-crimination claim.

Matlala was asked whether he was influenced to give false statements before the ad hoc committee in parliament.

He again invoked self-incrimination, but Sello told him there was nothing incriminating about the question.

Van den Heever said she believed Matlala’s response sufficed and said that if Matlala was being forced to answer to the point where he lied, he would face a perjury charge.

“This fear of self-incrimination has limits in law and in life,” Sello responded. “The question is simple: were you induced or threatened to give false information? That’s all. It’s not whether you gave false information or not because only then does the issue of perjury arise.”

Van den Heever hit back that the moment the question is responded to, other questions would flow from there.

This led to chairperson justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga suggesting that Matlala respond to the question in his supplementary statement that he is expected to file by Friday.

Matlala was further asked to give more details on why Sgt Fannie Nkosi, Sibiya’s right-hand man, was in possession of his company [Luxo Africa Brand Investments] bank card and how long Nkosi had the card for.

“Luxo Africa Brand is my co-accused in the Medicare tender [so] I am unable to respond to the questions posed. I am of the view that I may incriminate myself by answering questions related to Nkosi and Luxo Africa in view of the pending case,” Matlala said.

He was also asked how he knew North West businessman Suliman Carrim and why Carrim gave him R15m.

Carrim previously told the Madlanga inquiry that he loaned Matlala money and stood to benefit 10% from the Medicare tender.

Matlala was then asked to provide more details about the loan, and again revoked his right not to incriminate himself.

He admitted that tender tycoon Hangwani Maumela was his friend and that Maumela was once a director of his company. When asked to give more details about their relationship, Matlala again revoked his right not to incriminate himself, stating that he was aware of the Special Investigating Unit investigation [which is probing the pair for their roles in the looting of Tembisa Hospital].

Matlala also refused to give more details about the nature of his relationship with suspended Ekurhuleni metro police deputy chief Julius Mkhwanazi, stating that he was aware of Mkhwanazi’s criminal case and that his name keeps on being referenced, and as a result he does not wish to self-incriminate.

Mkhwanazi is accused of doing a fraudulent deal with Matlala’s company which resulted in Mkhwanazi illegally fitting blue lights to a fleet of Matlala’s vehicles.

Matlala is expected to return to the commission for cross-examination on August 24.