Matlala threatens to walk out of Madlanga as lead counsel falls ill
Matlala threatens to walk out of Madlanga as lead counsel falls ill, after Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala objected to continuing with his testimony without his lead lawyer, Annalise van den Heever.
The development caused tension at the Madlanga Commission on Monday as Matlala’s legal team requested additional time to prepare for the next stage of proceedings.
Matlala’s lawyers asked for his testimony to be postponed until Tuesday, 25 August, arguing that Van der Heever’s sudden illness had left the defence team without its lead counsel.
The legal dispute emerged as the commission prepared to continue questioning Matlala, whose evidence is being closely watched as part of a broader South African police corruption probe.
His junior counsel, Fatima Missi, told the commission that Matlala was not comfortable proceeding without Van der Heever and believed he would not receive adequate legal representation under the circumstances.
Vusimuzi Cat Matlala challenges decision to proceed
The Vusimuzi Cat Matlala hearing became increasingly contentious when his legal team indicated that he could approach the courts if the commission refused to grant a one-day postponement.
Missi said Matlala’s position was that proceeding without his lead counsel would be unfair.
According to the legal team, they also needed additional time to prepare a replying affidavit and heads of argument in response to matters raised by the commission.
Missi requested that the proceedings be stood down for the remainder of Monday to allow the defence team to complete the necessary documents.
She explained that Matlala’s lead counsel had become unavailable because of an illness that developed suddenly.
The legal team argued that the circumstances were outside Van der Heever’s control and that Matlala should not be disadvantaged as a result.
Legal team warns of possible urgent court application
The dispute escalated when Missi told the commission that Matlala was prepared to seek an urgent court order if his request was rejected.
Such an application, she explained, would seek to temporarily stop his testimony while the decision to proceed without his lead counsel was reviewed.
Missi said Matlala had instructed his lawyers that he was not prepared to continue under the circumstances.
The warning introduced the possibility that the Matlala testimony could be delayed further if the legal team followed through with the proposed court action.
Missi also raised concerns about the preparation of the defence team, saying the lawyers had not been able to consult Matlala as extensively as they would have liked.
According to her, the legal team experienced delays in accessing Matlala at the correctional facility and had only a limited opportunity to consult him on Monday morning.
Madlanga Commission refuses immediate postponement
Commission chairperson Mbuyiseli Madlanga indicated that the commission was prepared to continue despite the absence of Van der Heever.
Madlanga acknowledged that written submissions could assist lawyers but explained that such documents primarily assist the decision-maker rather than being essential to the presentation of arguments.
The chairperson therefore did not accept that the absence of the heads of argument automatically prevented the proceedings from continuing.
The disagreement placed Matlala’s legal team in a difficult position.
On one side, the defence argued that Matlala’s right to proper legal representation required additional preparation time. On the other, the commission maintained that the proceedings should not necessarily be delayed because one member of the legal team was unavailable.
Evidence leader Adila Hassim opposes postponement
Evidence leader Adila Hassim said she sympathised with Missi but argued that the legal team still had a responsibility to proceed.
Hassim noted that the legal team had known Van der Heever would not be available and questioned why the issue had not been raised with the commission earlier.
She also challenged the suggestion that difficulties in consulting Matlala justified postponing the proceedings.
Hassim referred to information from the Department of Correctional Services concerning access to Matlala.
According to the response read to the commission, Khoza, an area commissioner in the Department of Correctional Services, disputed claims that Matlala’s lawyers had experienced significant difficulties consulting him.
Khoza reportedly said the legal team had consulted Matlala for three days and that officials were willing to make concessions because of the importance of the commission’s work.
He also said he had checked the claims with the head of the correctional centre, Mr Nxebengu, who reportedly denied creating disadvantages for Matlala’s legal team.
Matlala testimony hangs in the balance
The disagreement is significant because the Matlala testimony is expected to form an important part of the commission’s examination of issues surrounding the broader investigation.
Matlala’s lawyers maintain that he should not be forced to answer questions without his preferred legal representation.
The commission, meanwhile, has indicated that the absence of one counsel does not necessarily prevent the hearing from continuing.
This creates a potential legal confrontation over how the commission should balance its mandate with Matlala’s right to adequate representation.
The situation could also determine whether Matlala proceeds with cross-examination immediately or whether his legal team seeks judicial intervention.
Could Matlala approach the courts?
Missi made it clear that Matlala was prepared to approach the courts if the commission refused to reconsider its position.
The proposed application would seek an urgent interdict preventing Matlala from giving evidence until the decision concerning the postponement could be reviewed.
However, at the point covered by the proceedings, the commission had not indicated that Matlala had actually launched such an application.
That distinction is important.
A threat to seek an urgent court order is not the same as an actual court application. The legal position could therefore change depending on what Matlala and his lawyers decide to do next.
Why the Madlanga Commission matters
The Madlanga Commission is examining allegations and issues surrounding policing, criminality and governance in South Africa.
Its proceedings have attracted significant public attention because evidence presented before the commission could potentially shed light on wider concerns about law enforcement and alleged corruption.
Matlala’s appearance has therefore become another closely watched stage of the inquiry.
His lawyers’ concerns about representation add another layer to proceedings that are already under intense scrutiny.
The commission must now balance the need to move forward with its investigation against procedural concerns raised by Matlala’s defence team.
What happens next?
At the conclusion of the proceedings, Madlanga indicated that the commission would proceed with hearing Matlala’s application.
This means the immediate issue was not simply whether Matlala would be cross-examined, but whether his request for additional preparation time should be granted.
If the postponement is rejected, Matlala’s legal team could still decide whether to proceed with the available counsel or approach a court for urgent relief.
If the court route is pursued, it could temporarily interrupt the commission’s timetable.
For now, the dispute highlights the importance of legal representation in high-profile public inquiries and demonstrates how procedural decisions can have significant consequences for the progress of testimony.
YOU MAY LIKE:
Conclusion
Matlala threatens to walk out of Madlanga as lead counsel falls ill, creating a dramatic procedural dispute at the commission.
His lead counsel, Annalise van den Heever, was unavailable because of illness, prompting Matlala to object to proceeding with cross-examination.
His junior counsel, Fatima Missi, requested a one-day postponement and warned that Matlala could seek an urgent court order if the commission refused.
However, evidence leader Adila Hassim opposed the postponement, while chairperson Mbuyiseli Madlanga indicated that the commission was prepared to continue despite the absence of Van der Heever.
The dispute now places the next stage of the Matlala testimony under close scrutiny.
As the South African police corruption probe continues, the commission’s handling of Matlala’s request could become an important procedural development in its ongoing work.
Disclaimer: This article reports on statements and developments presented during commission proceedings. Allegations or claims discussed in connection with the inquiry should not be treated as established facts unless confirmed by competent authorities or a court.
Mainstream media references
- Eyewitness News (EWN) — Madlanga Commission refuses ‘Cat’ Matlala’s postponement bid — reports that Matlala’s legal team sought a postponement after lead counsel Annelene van den Heever was absent due to illness, while the commission refused the postponement.
Read the full EWN report - Eyewitness News (EWN) — ‘Cat’ Matlala set to return to Madlanga Commission — provides background on the continuation of Matlala’s testimony and the earlier postponement to allow him to consult his legal team.
Read the full EWN report - TimesLIVE / Sunday Times — ‘I won’t incriminate myself’: Matlala refuses to answer Madlanga inquiry — covers Matlala’s appearance before the commission and his decision to invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Read the full TimesLIVE report - TimesLIVE — Here are five questions Cat Matlala refused to answer at the Madlanga inquiry — details questions concerning the SAPS tender, alleged payments and Matlala’s relationships that he declined to answer.
Read the full TimesLIVE report
Support Independent Journalism with eKayNews! 📰✨
At eKayNews, we are dedicated to bringing you honest, independent, and reliable news. But we can’t do it alone—independent journalism relies on the strength and generosity of its community.
If you value our work, please consider supporting us today! You can help keep us going by choosing a subscription or simply buying us a one-off virtual coffee:
👉 Support us here: ekaynews.co.za/subscribe-form/
You can also support our mission by visiting our main site at www.ekaynews.co.za and following @eKayNews on all social media platforms.
Thank you so much for your incredible generosity and for being part of our journey! 🙏💙
