Cat Matlala’s legal team threatens to withdraw from Madlanga commission
· Citizen
The future of Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s testimony before the Madlanga commission was thrown into uncertainty on Monday, 24 August 2026, after his legal team threatened to withdraw from the proceedings.
Visit asg-reflektory.pl for more information.
Matlala was back in the witness box at the Bridgette Mabandla Justice College in Pretoria as the commission sought to continue probing his evidence.
However, proceedings were dominated by a dispute over an application concerning Matlala’s constitutional right against self-incrimination.
The application relates to several areas the commission wants to question Matlala about, including the R360 million Medicare24 tender.
Dispute emerges at Madlanga commission over legal application
Evidence leader Advocate Adila Hassim told the commission that Matlala’s affidavit had been submitted 45 minutes after the deadline.
According to her, Matlala’s lawyers had attributed the late filing to difficulties in consulting with their client at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre.
Hassim also indicated that the commission’s evidence leaders were still waiting for a replying affidavit and heads of argument from Matlala’s lawyers.
Advocate Fatima Missi, who is representing Matlala alongside Advocate Annelene van den Heever, contended that the legal team had struggled to obtain instructions from their client.
Van den Heever was not present during Monday’s proceedings.
Missi said her colleague’s health issues had further complicated matters and contributed to delays in finalising the necessary legal papers.
She asked for the matter to be postponed until Tuesday to allow the legal team to complete its documents.
“We beg this commission, humbly so, to consider all the elements that we have to consistently have to deal with to make sure that we try and represent Mr Matlala and also stand before the commission in good faith that we are given an opportunity to file that replying affidavit, our heads of argument as well as written condonation application for the late filing,” Missi told the commission.
The commission’s chairperson, Mbuyiseli Madlanga, however, indicated that he was inclined to deal with the application immediately.
Evidence leaders push back
Hassim rejected the suggestion that Matlala’s legal team had not had enough time to prepare.
She argued that the lawyers had been able to consult with Matlala during the entirety of last week and that the circumstances cited by the defence did not adequately explain why the application had not been filed earlier.
According to Hassim, Matlala’s lawyers had known since March this year the broad areas of evidence the commission intended to explore.
“This application could have been brought much sooner. All of the time that was available to Mr Matlala’s legal team extends over months, not over days.”
Hassim also challenged the scope of the application, arguing that Matlala could not claim “blanket immunity” from self-incrimination across broad areas of questioning.
She called on the commission to dismiss the application and allow Matlala’s evidence to continue.
After a lengthy adjournment, Madlanga ruled that the application would be heard.
Cat Matlala considers urgent court bid
The legal confrontation intensified when Missi informed the commission that Matlala had instructed his lawyers to approach the courts with an urgent interdict application.
“He is of the view that it is unfair that he is being placed in this position whereas to proceed without Ms van den Heever, who is his lead counsel, and without heads of arguments before [the commission], which he believes then implies we are not properly prepared and we are being strong-armed into proceeding,” the lawyer said.
Hassim argued that Missi, as junior counsel, could continue representing Matlala in the absence of Van den Heever.
“This is what happens in practice and we are often called upon to step into the shoes of our leaders on short notice and be prepared to do so.”
She added: “They were aware that Ms van den Heever would not be available today. This could have been brought to our attention much sooner.”
The evidence leader also placed before the commission a message from Correctional Services Area Commissioner Emmanuel Khoza, disputing the legal team’s account of difficulties in accessing Matlala.
“They consulted for three days, and we are prepared to make concessions anytime because we understand the importance of the commission,” Khosa’s message reads.
Hassim maintained that the prospect of an interdict application did not, by itself, prevent the commission from continuing its work.
She argued that only a court order could stop the proceedings.
Lawyers threaten to leave
The standoff reached a critical point after a second adjournment when Missi indicated Matlala had instructed his entire legal team to withdraw if the commission refused to give them more time to prepare the self-incrimination application.
“He would be without representation,” she remarked.
Madlanga subsequently turned to Matlala and sought clarity on whether he had agreed that his legal representatives would leave if the commission ordered his testimony to continue.
Matlala indicated that he and his legal team had discussed “three scenarios” but claimed he had not yet settled on a position.
“I am actually in the dark now because while I was having lunch, I didn’t have enough time to conclude what we have been discussing,” he responded, adding that he did not know whether the issues advanced by his legal team was in fact Van den Heever’s position.
Matlala’s response, Missi explained, suggested there had been a breakdown in communication between him and his legal representatives.
The commission then adjourned for lunch, with Matlala expected to confirm at 2pm whether he intends to continue with his current legal team.