By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The underworld kingpin Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala returned to the witness stand at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry at the Bridgette Mabandla Justice College in Tshwane on Monday, 24 August 2026.
Proceedings were briefly thrown into uncertainty when Matlala’s legal team threatened to withdraw if his testimony was not postponed until Tuesday.
His testimony has been characterised by a series of objections and disagreements between his legal representatives and the commission over whether he was adequately prepared to continue.
In a dramatic development, Matlala appeared to contradict his legal team, saying he was not entirely sure whether the instruction to withdraw had come from his lead attorney, Advocate Annelie van den Heever.
“I am actually in the dark now because… I didn’t get enough time to conclude what we discussed, so we came straight here. So I do not know whether what my legal counsel is saying now is coming from Mrs. van den Heever or not, so I’m actually in the dark,” Matlala said.
Advocate Fatima Missi, who represented Matlala on Monday, placed on record that the entire legal team could withdraw if the commission refused to grant the requested postponement.
The lawyers said they needed additional time to familiarise themselves with documents relevant to Matlala’s testimony.
Missi told the commission that Matlala had experienced difficulties consulting with his legal representatives ahead of Monday’s proceedings, adding that the legal team was also still waiting to obtain some documents considered relevant to his testimony.
The commission’s evidence leader, Advocate Adila Hassim, opposed the request, arguing that the issues before the commission were not new to Matlala’s legal team and that the inquiry was itself operating under significant time constraints.
Despite the objections, commission Chairperson, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, ruled that proceedings would continue.
Matlala’s legal team eventually agreed to remain on record and continue representing him, while maintaining that he retains his right against self-incrimination when answering questions from the commission.
Matlala’s continued reluctance to answer questions, which he has asserted is his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination when it comes to matters linked to investigations that could incriminate him.
He argues that answering questions about the R228-million Medicare24 tender and other matters could prejudice his pending criminal case.
Last week, Matlala told the commission about his relationship with controversial ANC-linked North West businessman Suliman Carrim, including a R15-million loan and their shared visits to the late taxi boss Jothan Msibi, whom authorities have linked to the alleged Big Five cartel.
Matlala also confirmed meeting KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi once in Durban in early 2025, but said they had no relationship.
Matlala’s attempt to invoke his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination to avoid questions about his relationship with suspended deputy national police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya came under sustained scrutiny.
Evidence leader advocate Mahlape Sello, SC, challenged Matlala to explain how discussing his relationship with Sibiya could expose him to criminal liability. Matlala has argued that he cannot discuss the relationship because Sibiya is allegedly the subject of an investigation linked to the Medicare24 tender, and recordings involving the two.
She pressed Matlala: “Incriminate yourself in what?”
Commission’s chairperson Justice Madlanga also referred to Constitutional Court authority requiring a claim of privilege to fall within clearly defined parameters, rather than being asserted in general terms.
Matlala said discussing Sibiya could force him to address matters relating to the Medicare24 investigation, including allegations of fraud and money laundering, which he said he did not know how to explain without going into the investigation itself.
He ultimately sought to minimise the relationship, saying Sibiya was not his friend and that their communication had been limited.
Sello then introduced another significant complication. She put it to Matlala that he had entered into a plea-and-sentence agreement with the State in the Medicare24 matter, which was presented to court, but ultimately rejected after the court made a counter-proposal involving a heavier sentence.
Matlala rejected that counter-proposal on 13 July 2026. His cross-examination will continue on Tuesday at the Bridgette Mabandla Justice College in Tshwane.