Matlala on former Madlanga witness: ‘I actually hate him. He caused a lot of problems for me’

Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala has frustrated the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry by refusing to answer questions related to other high-profile witnesses and his co-accused in other criminal matters.

Aided by Advocate Annelene van den Heever, Matlala invoked his right not to incriminate himself when asked about his relationships with General Shadrack Sibiya, Sergeant Fanie Nkosi and Sulliman Carrim.

However, one relationship Matlala was willing to speak on was that with Brown Mogotsi.

Matlala explained Mogotsi first contacted him days after police raided his home, relaying that he was from the office of police minister Senzo Mchunu.

Mogotsi allegedly offered to help Matlala open a case against the officers who conducted the raid.

Leaving out sections of their interactions on the basis that he did not want to incriminate himself, Matlala outlined his association with Mogotsi.

“When they came for the second time for the raid, he asked money from me. He said he wants to bring experts from the police to do the investigation to find out who are these people who came to my house.

“By then he wanted money. Yes, I gave him that money, I think it was R20 000. He said we must book accommodation for those investigators,” Matlala told the commission.

He then explained how he began to deal more with Mogotsi before meeting former police minister Bheki Cele, who instructed him to maintain the relationship to establish possible corrupt links to Mchunu.

“That’s when I kept on sending Brown Mogotsi money. I paid R150 000 for that January 8 celebration of the ANC,” said Matlala.

When asked what the status of his interactions with Mogotsi was, Matlala gave a blunt response.

“I actually hate him. He caused a lot of problems for me. [It ended] after my arrest.”

No response on Sibiya’s impala

Monday began with a delay caused by the activation of the venue’s fire alarm, after which defence counsel Van den Heever warned the commissioners that her client’s responses would be limited.

She explained that her team wished to file a supplementary affidavit outlining the legal basis for why Matlala would not be responding in full.

“My concern is that if, for instance, you as the commissioners wish to ask for points of clarification, and it relates to legal points, what do we do there?

“[With the supplementary affidavit], you then make your ruling and say you are not a suspect and you must answer questions relating to witness X, or you uphold our point,” Van den Heever requested.

Commission chair Mbuyiseli Madlanga acknowledged Van Den Heever’s concerns, but said “logistical issues” could be addressed when they arose.

After confirming the long list of charges and court matters he is facing, Matlala was asked questions relating to the alleged delivery of 20 impala to Sibiya and any other potential gratuities exchanged.

Matlala said he would need to scrutinise the audio recording on which the impala were mentioned, and that his response would be contained in the supplementary affidavit.

Advocate Mahlape Sello repeated the question and asked on what grounds he was invoking the right to not reply, before Matlala stood firm on his reluctance to answer.

“Yes, commissioner, like I said, I do not want to incriminate myself because I know the recordings are under investigation, and at the time I made my affidavit, I was not aware of that,” said Matlala.

“Is it your attitude that the commission cannot engage you on anything that you suspect is currently under investigation?” Sello responded.

Van den Heever interjected, stating her team was dealing with the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) on the matter, reiterating the purpose of the supplementary affidavit.

“For the record, legally, the issue of suspicion has an objective and a subjective part. I think we must all just place this on record. It’s not a question of seeing it very simplistically.

“It was placed on record that the subject of what is contained in these recordings are being investigated, and the inference that I would draw from that is that the PKTT and their cohorts are busy investigating issues that form part of this statement that my client was made to do.

“As I said, I want to emphasise that we are going to address legal points to you on that, in due course, as part of the supplementary and on the points in limine,” said Van den Heever.

Matlala testimony postponed

Matlala also declined to comment on his relationship with Sergeant Nkosi, his company Luxo Africa and the loan agreement with Carrim.

“Luxo Africa is my co-accused. So the money that went to Sergeant Nkosi is from Luxo Africa, so I do not want to do that because now, I still have to ventilate this in court,” said Matlala.

The commissioners continued to probe Matlala, and soon after he stated the loan agreement with Carrim was oral, Van den Heever took exception to the questions.

“Chairperson, just for the record, and I’m sure you know this, but the content of such a docket is sub judice.

“We cannot disclose what’s in the docket in public at this point because it relates to an ongoing investigation,” the advocate stated.

The day concluded with Van den Heever reiterating her desire to submit the supplementary affidavit and points in limine, to which the commissioners agreed.

Matlala will return to the commission on 24 and 25 August.