Seen shopping but too ill to testify at Madlanga: Suliman Carrim to be charged

North West business tycoon Suliman Carrim will face a criminal charge for not appearing before the Madlanga commission of inquiry after his testimony postponed for months due to ill health.

Carrim also refused to subject himself to an independent assessment by a medical practitioner appointed by the commission.

Commission chair Mbuyiseli Madlanga announced the move on Friday, adding that it marks “the end of the road” in relation to Carrim’s appearance before the commission.

“Let me outright say, the commission is going set a criminal process in motion,” said Madlanga.

The commission secretary Nolitha Vukuza, in her official capacity, will lay the complaint on behalf of the commission.

“This is something that the commission has to do otherwise witnesses will choose to come or not to come testify before it willingly; we cannot, and we will not, have that.”

Madlanga said the commission was not in a position to stop Carrim’s legal team from taking the move on review but would be “surprised” by a decision to do so.

The Commissions Act provides that any person summoned to attend, who without sufficient cause fails to attend, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding 50 pounds (R1,093) or do imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Carrim’s testimony before the commission was on his links to corruption accused Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala, who faces criminal charges in relation to the awarding of a R228m tender by the South Africa Police Service.

Carrim testified that he lent Matlala R10m but denied any knowledge or playing any part in alleged corruption regarding the controversial tender.

His testimony also linked him to controversial tender tycoon Hangwani Morgan Maumela. Carrim was due to return to the commission to provide more evidence of his dealings with Maumela. Due to postponements from April, that testimony will not take place before the commission.

In July, the commission delivered a ruling that Carrim was required to appear and testify, and could only be excused when he had voluntarily subjected himself to an independent evaluation by a medical specialist appointed by the commission but decided on by evidence leaders and Carrim’s legal team.

Carrim did not agree to the independent evaluation; his doctor, however, offered to testify privately to the commission and take questions on the medical reports submitted to the commission.

Carrim’s legal representative, advocate Kameel Premhid, argued that a less intrusive investigation into Carrim’s medical condition was for his doctor to testify to the commission rather than the independent assessment.

“The doctor has made himself available to the commission on more than one occasion. It is a less intrusive means that is available to the commission in circumstances where the purpose of examination is to run a parallel process to verify those clinical opinions,” Premhid said.

The debate on Carrim’s medical position intensified last month after it was reported to the commission that he was seen shopping in the Western Cape. That was not disputed by his legal team.

Premhid argued that a clinical explanation for “outings” was provided in the medical reports submitted to the commission.

Madlanga, however, said the commission wanted an objective medical report, not one from the doctor who has been treating Carrim for some time and is “seemingly” pushing the story that Carrim was not fit to appear.

“To counter the question whether Mr Carrim is indeed unable to come to this commission, the commission has said it wants to have him assessed by an independent specialist,” Madlanga said.

“From where we are seating, we do not consider Mr Carrim’s doctor to be an objective expert. He is an expert that is closely associated with Mr Carrim and who, from where we are sitting and unless we get another opinion, appears to us to be pushing Mr Carrim’s story.”

Madlanga likened the position of the commission to that of court proceedings that get an independent expert not associated with litigants to testify when the court requires an objective view.

If an independent medical doctor reached the same conclusion that Carrim was not fit to appear, the commission would have accepted that report, Madlanga said.