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

The Johannesburg High Court will, on Thursday, 5 February, deliver judgment in businessman Suleiman Carrim’s urgent bid to prevent him from testifying before the Madlanga Commission.

In court papers, the commission, chaired by retired Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, argues that granting Carrim even limited interim relief would set a dangerous precedent for this and future commissions of inquiry, warning that interim interdicts “continue to be abused”.

“Interim interdicts are capable of being, have been, and continue to be, abused by a party that succeeds in securing or resisting one… The experience thus far demonstrates that courts have to be more vigilant when dealing with applications for interim interdicts, especially when granting them,” the commission argues.

The commission says if Carrim gets temporary relief, it could delay his testimony and make it difficult to wrap up its work by 16 March. It warns that it might also encourage other witnesses to file last-minute legal challenges.

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.

Questions of fairness

Carrim, a businessman with links to the ANC, argued that the commission 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.

His application is in two parts. In Part A, an urgent application, he seeks an interdict preventing the commission from calling on him to provide a statement or to appear before it to give oral testimony until the commission has complied with the relevant regulations and rules.

In Part B, he asks the court to review and set aside the commission’s decision to refer to him as a witness on the basis that he is an “implicated person” until it complies with the principles of natural justice to protect the rights afforded to him in section 12 of the Constitution.

“Although the commission’s function is to investigate and report, it is required to make findings of fact that could be damaging to those it makes findings against. Its reports can ruin reputations and careers,” Carrim argued.

“The commission’s report may expose persons to criminal proceedings or civil actions. Therefore, because the function of the commission may lead to such consequences, it clearly follows that the commission is duty-bound to observe the principles of natural justice and fair play meticulously.”

He said the commission’s “high-handed” conduct against him began on 29 October 2025, when it served him with a notice requiring him to provide a sworn statement addressing specific issues by 6 November 2025.

Following this, Carrim’s attorney, Sikander Tayob of ST Attorneys, reached out to the commission, indicating that they were in the process of preparing a statement and asking for transcripts of the inquiry related to Carrim.

On 5 November, the commission responded with a copy of WhatsApp messages between Carrim and Matlala and a link to the commission’s transcripts.

“I point out that the commission did not specify which day or portion of the transcript is relevant to me or which implicates me,” said Carrim.

On November 14, the commission sent another letter to Carrim, informing him that assertions of impropriety had been made against him, without giving further details.

“The commission could never have seriously believed that any reasonable person would be able to traverse over 2,500 pages of documents, properly prepare a written statement, and prepare to give oral testimony,” Carrim argued in the papers.

“Just from this letter, it is clear that the commission has no regard for conducting itself fairly, transparently and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.”

Lack of urgency

In its heads of arguments, the commission set out in detail why Carrim’s urgent application should be struck from the roll or dismissed, arguing that he had known for months that he would be required to account to the inquiry but waited until the eleventh hour to go to court.

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

“Mr Carrim chose to impose this extraordinary truncation of time periods fully aware that the commission sits in hearings until 16h00 daily,” the commission argued.

“In effect, Mr Carrim gave the commission only two nights to furnish its answering affidavit in the urgent application. This is very little time to file an answering affidavit.

“Our primary submission is that Mr Carrim has failed to make out a case on urgency. The application is an abuse of process, and any urgency faced by Mr Carrim is self-created. He abused the court’s process by rushing to court on less than a week’s notice, and the time periods afforded to the commission were unreasonably short.

“He hopes to use this urgent application to stop the commission’s ability to compel him to give oral evidence before it.”

The commission has 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.

If the court rules against Carrim, Madlanga has conceded in an answering affidavit that Carrim’s testimony will still have to be heard without a prior statement, as was the case with other witnesses.

“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. DM