IN CONVERSATION WITH TIEGO KHOZA
Loading player...
The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has rejected an application by controversial businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s legal team to prevent the commission from questioning him about information contained in a statement submitted during his now-collapsed plea and sentence agreement with the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC). The ruling was delivered on Monday, 9 November 2026, by commission chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, following arguments between Matlala’s defence team and the commission’s evidence leaders over whether the disputed statement could legally be used during the inquiry.
Matlala’s legal representative, Advocate Anneline van den Heever, argued that the Section 204 statement was linked to a separate plea and sentence agreement under Section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The defence maintained that because the agreement had collapsed, the statement and information shared during those negotiations should no longer be used. They also raised concerns that allowing the commission to question Matlala about the statement could infringe on his constitutional rights, particularly his right against self-incrimination, and potentially prejudice his ongoing criminal proceedings. However, the commission’s evidence leader, Advocate Mahlape Sello, argued that the commission had the authority to examine relevant evidence and that Matlala was protected against having his commission testimony used against him in criminal court proceedings.
In rejecting the defence's submission, Justice Madlanga drew a distinction between the restrictions governing failed plea agreements in criminal proceedings and the powers of a commission of inquiry. He ruled that the restrictions under Section 105A did not automatically prevent the commission from examining the statement. Matlala’s legal team indicated its intention to urgently challenge the ruling in court, raising further questions about the relationship between the powers of commissions of inquiry, the rights of individuals implicated in criminal investigations and the broader fight against corruption. The development is particularly significant given Matlala’s alleged involvement in the controversial multi-million-rand Medicare24 contract and the wider allegations of corruption and criminal infiltration within South Africa’s criminal justice system that the commission is investigating
Matlala’s legal representative, Advocate Anneline van den Heever, argued that the Section 204 statement was linked to a separate plea and sentence agreement under Section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The defence maintained that because the agreement had collapsed, the statement and information shared during those negotiations should no longer be used. They also raised concerns that allowing the commission to question Matlala about the statement could infringe on his constitutional rights, particularly his right against self-incrimination, and potentially prejudice his ongoing criminal proceedings. However, the commission’s evidence leader, Advocate Mahlape Sello, argued that the commission had the authority to examine relevant evidence and that Matlala was protected against having his commission testimony used against him in criminal court proceedings.
In rejecting the defence's submission, Justice Madlanga drew a distinction between the restrictions governing failed plea agreements in criminal proceedings and the powers of a commission of inquiry. He ruled that the restrictions under Section 105A did not automatically prevent the commission from examining the statement. Matlala’s legal team indicated its intention to urgently challenge the ruling in court, raising further questions about the relationship between the powers of commissions of inquiry, the rights of individuals implicated in criminal investigations and the broader fight against corruption. The development is particularly significant given Matlala’s alleged involvement in the controversial multi-million-rand Medicare24 contract and the wider allegations of corruption and criminal infiltration within South Africa’s criminal justice system that the commission is investigating
