PRETORIA, Monday 24 August 2026 — Businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala has instructed his lawyers to seek an urgent court interdict over his continued testimony before the Madlanga Commission, escalating a dispute over his right against self-incrimination after the inquiry rejected his latest attempt to delay proceedings.
Matlala’s legal team also raised the possibility of withdrawing from the commission proceedings during tense exchanges on Monday, although Matlala told the inquiry that he had not yet decided whether his lawyers should do so.
The dispute follows the commission’s rejection earlier on Monday of an application to postpone Matlala’s evidence. His lawyers had cited difficulties consulting him at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre and the absence through illness of lead counsel Advocate Annelene van den Heever.
Advocate Fatima Missi, appearing for Matlala, told the commission that his legal representatives required additional time to prepare. The commission declined the request and required the parties to proceed with substantive arguments concerning Matlala’s claimed protection against self-incrimination.
The legal dispute centres in part on WhatsApp messages that Matlala’s lawyers contend were obtained unlawfully. His representatives argue that he should not be compelled to answer questions based on the messages while their legality and admissibility are being challenged.
Matlala previously declined to answer several questions concerning the SAPS Medicare24 tender, relying on his constitutional right against self-incrimination because related matters are before the courts.
He returned to the commission on Monday after being directed to file supplementary material addressing matters raised during his earlier evidence.
The Madlanga Commission is investigating allegations of criminality, political interference and corruption within South Africa’s criminal justice system. Matlala’s evidence forms part of its examination of alleged relationships between private individuals, police officials and people accused by witnesses of involvement in criminal networks.
An urgent court application could move part of the dispute outside the commission and require a court to consider the relationship between the inquiry’s investigative powers and Matlala’s constitutional protections while he faces separate criminal proceedings.
The immediate course of Matlala’s testimony will depend on further decisions by the commission and whether his lawyers proceed with the proposed urgent interdict.
