Businessman Suliman Carrim fails in court bid to avoid testifying at Madlanga Commission

ANC-aligned businessman Suliman Carrim will have to appear before the Madlanga Commission after his court application seeking to avoid being called to testify was dismissed.

Carrim had approached the Gauteng Division of the High Court on an urgent basis, arguing that the commission, chaired by retired Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, had breached its own rules and the constitutional principles of fairness, and that he was being singled out and treated differently from other implicated people.

On Thursday, 5 February, the court criticised Carrim’s application, which was brought more than three months after he was first subpoenaed.

Read more: Court case threatens Madlanga Commission’s ability to compel testimony from key witnesses

“The applicant brings the application more than 10 weeks since he was first summoned to give oral evidence before the commission. There can be no doubt that the inevitability of that appearance has long been prevalent in the mind of the applicant,” the court said.

“Apart from the fact that the application is without merit in that the summons is extant and its implications unavoidable, the self–creation of the urgency makes the determination of this application in the urgent court unfeasible.”

The spokesperson for the commission, Jeremy Michaels, welcomed the court’s decision.

“The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry welcomes the judgment handed down by the ... high court, and we look forward to Mr Suliman Carrim taking the witness stand tomorrow [Friday],” he said.

‘Obstructive attitude’

Carrim has been accused of accepting R2.5-million for helping criminally accused Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala obtain payments related to his R360-million SAPS contract, which was later cancelled.

In earlier court papers, Madlanga conceded that Carrim’s testimony would have to be heard without a prior statement, as was the case with other witnesses, a process which could be difficult.

“Due to the delays of Mr Carrim and his attorneys, the commission has now resigned itself to the fact that the evidence of Mr Carrim will be led without the benefit of a statement.

“That will make proceedings more cumbersome than they need to be, but that is an inevitable consequence of the obstructive attitude that Mr Carrim and his attorneys have taken,” said Madlanga.

Beyond his relationship with Matlala, Carrim is also expected to testify about his ties with sidelined police minister Senzo Mchunu and the Crime Intelligence counter-intelligence and security head, Feroz Khan.

“Information is sought as to the role that he performed for Mr Matlala in relation to a contract between SAPS and Medicare24, Minister Mchunu and the nature and extent of the applicant’s relationship with named individuals, including General Shadrack Sibiya and Mr Brown Mogotsi and various legal entities,” according to the court papers.

The commission has, since September 2025, been hearing evidence of alleged criminality, political interference and corruption within South Africa’s law enforcement agencies, following claims by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi that top officials had conspired to obstruct investigations into criminal syndicates.

‘Self-created urgency’

In court papers, Carrim argued that he was willing to cooperate provided the commission complied with all the rules and regulations, but the court was of the view that he was creating unnecessary obstacles to giving his testimony.

“It seems from the correspondence that, whilst feigning willingness to cooperate, the applicant is, in fact, actively placing unreasonable impediments in the way of the testimony which he will have to give before the commission.

“The level of obstruction is such that the applicant’s attorney has refused even to accept service of process through his office, notwithstanding being on record; physical service by the sheriff is insisted on,” reads the judgment.

The commission had also argued that Carrim’s application was an abuse of process, saying that he had known for months that he would be required to testify but waited until the last moment to approach the court.

Court papers show that Carrim was issued with a fresh subpoena on 23 January, directing him to appear on 6 February, yet he only launched his urgent application on 26 January.

In its judgment, the court agreed with the commission.

“Self-created urgency implies more than mere delay. It often involves a degree of contrivance and abuse of process. When a party fails to approach a court at the earliest possible opportunity and then delays unduly to approach court, he risks not affording a party’s opposition sufficient time to place its case before the court.

“It is expected of litigants to react immediately to remedy or prevent harm and/or prejudice, rather than standing back and doing nothing until it is too late,” reads the judgment. DM