By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry is going to lay criminal charges against controversial North-West businessman Suliman Carrim over medical assessment and refusal to testify.
Carrim was scheduled to appear before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry on Friday, 14 August 2026 after being subpoenaed to testify.
Commission chair Mbuyiseli Madlanga said Carrim’s conduct warrants referral to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for violation of Commission Act.
Madlanga brought months of wrangling and multiple no-shows to an end: “The commission is going to set the criminal process in motion. The commission will direct the commission secretary to lay criminal charges against Mr Carrim.”
Madlanga said allowing Carrim’s continued non-appearance to go unanswered would undermine the commission itself.
“If the commission were not to do that, witnesses will decide willy-nilly not to appear before it. The commission will lay criminal charges against Mr Carrim.”
And with that, Madlanga declared: “That’s the end of the road insofar as us having Mr Carrim before us.”
The confrontation centres on Carrim’s continued reliance on medical reasons for not appearing before the commission, which ruled in July that Carrim should undergo an independent medical assessment.
Evidence leader Adila Hassim said the commission obtained the name of an independent specialist the following day. But Carrim’s lawyers did not agree to the assessment.
“On August 3, we wrote and asked for a response by August 10 on whether Mr Carrim consented to an independent evaluation. No response was received,” said Hassim.
Instead, the commission received a further report from Carrim’s treating doctor on 12 August. But by then, there was another complication in Carrim’s medical case: Woolworths and Kauai.
While Carrim was said to be medically unable to appear before the commission, evidence had emerged that he was able to leave the facility where he was being treated and visit Woolworths and Kauai.
Carrim’s advocate, Kameel Premhid, replied that even if they appeared to be outings, they were not. Hassim looked perplexed by this exchange.
More damaging for the commission was what happened to the treating doctor’s explanation once the Woolworths and Kauai visits became known.
Madlanga said the doctor had initially indicated that a patient could leave the facility only with his permission.
“A patient can only go out of the facility if I allow them to go (the doctor said). But once we got the Woolworths and Kauai visits, the doctor changes tack and says even nurses allow patients out.”
That apparent distancing of the doctor from the Woolworths and Kauai excursions – and from the suggestion that he had necessarily authorised them as part of Carrim’s treatment – fuelled the commission’s insistence that it needed a second, independent medical opinion.
Madlanga said an independent assessment was necessary precisely because the commission could no longer regard Carrim’s treating specialist as independent.
“To counter the question of whether Mr Carrim is indeed unable to come to this commission, he needs to be independently assessed.”
He said the shifting explanations over the outings had undermined the commission’s confidence in the doctor.
Premhid challenged whether the commission had the legal power to require Carrim to undergo an independent examination.
Madlanga said nobody was proposing physically compelling Carrim to see a doctor.
“There is no compulsion. On the vires (power to do so) issue, there is no compulsion. If he chooses not to go, nobody will force him. Nothing stops me from dealing with it.”
He then gave the clearest indication that Carrim’s refusal had pushed the commission towards criminal action.
Hassim urged the commission to act, arguing that its authority was now at stake.
“It’s important the commission does now: it has a duty and the power to regulate its own processes.”
She said the dispute had to be viewed in the context of a possible breach of the Commissions Act.
Madlanga agreed.
The commission would lay the criminal charge, leaving Carrim to argue his medical condition and the legality of the commission’s directive in the criminal process.
Meanwhile, Investigating Directorate Against Corruption’s (IDAC) State Advocate,Drushatha Ramsamy, suggested that the directorate’s on suspended National Police Commissioner, Fannie Masemola, intensified after he refused to suspend Crime Intelligence officials as recommended.
Ramsamy returned to the witness stand at the Commission on Friday, where she testified about the investigation into Crime Intelligence officials implicated in the alleged irregular appointment of Brigadier Dineo Mokwele.
Earlier this year, Masemola was drawn into a national inquiry into procurement irregularities over the alleged unlawful awarding of a R360 million health services contract to Medicare 24, a company owned by alleged underworld figure, Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala.
Ramsamy said IDAC wanted to see both Masemola and Crime Intelligence head, Dumisani Khumalo, removed from office.
“This just further demonstrates to me the determination with which this project was conducted. In my view the intention was to target General Masemola and General Khumalo until they were no longer in office. The attack against General Masemola may have intensified when he did not suspend General Khumalo and the other accused in the Mokwele matter,” said Ramsamy.