Advocate Anneline van den Heever told the commission, chaired by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, that the legal team needed to understand what had transpired during plea negotiations before Matlala could file a statement or testify.
“I cannot, at this point, in confidence, say to the commission, and I won’t permit my client to deal with those until such time as I know what they have negotiated with him, what they’ve asked him, what he’s committed to, what he’s doing,” Van den Heever said.
She maintained that discussions surrounding the abandoned plea agreement extended beyond the written document and included negotiations that could affect which questions Matlala was constitutionally entitled to answer.
“During a plea deal, there is much more than the simple wording in the PD that takes place. There are other negotiations that happen between the investigators, the client and the attorney,” she argued.
Relevance of failed plea negotiations challenged
Justice Madlanga repeatedly challenged the relevance of the failed plea negotiations to the commission’s work, highlighting that the commission was only interested in issues falling within its terms of reference.
“The earlier issue, the plea deal, its finalisation, or even non-finalisation, has nothing to do with the question I’m putting to you,” Madlanga said.
As Van den Heever persisted, the chairperson questioned why Matlala could not answer matters unrelated to his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
“I have simply not asked you that question. I am asking you a general question: on those issues on which there is no question whatsoever, what would be the basis of us not continuing with those prior to the finalisation of the criminal process?” Madlanga asked.
Plea process already declared ‘benign and void’
Commissioner Sesi Baloyi also pressed Van den Heever on why the commission should await documents from a plea process that had already been declared invalid.
“What I do not understand from you is, what is the problem? What is a hurdle to Mr Matala answering those questions if you do not know what happened in the negotiations?” Baloyi asked.
“That process has concluded and has been declared, in accordance with the law, to benign and void. So, for all intents and purposes, it never happens,” she added.
Van den Heever nevertheless stood firm, insisting that professional ethics prevented her from allowing her client to depose to an affidavit before reviewing the material.
“I cannot think of any other council that would act differently than I do,” she said.
Baloyi sought clarity on whether Matlala’s position was that he would neither file a statement nor testify until the IDAC material was received.
“Of course, that is my position at this point in time, because I’m ethically bound to act in that manner,” Van den Heever replied.
Request for additional time
She later indicated that, should the commission grant additional time, Matlala’s legal team believed they could submit a statement within two weeks.
Evidence leader advocate Mahlape Sello opposed the postponement application, arguing that the collapsed plea agreement had absolutely nothing to do with this commission.
“The plea agreement with IDAC has got absolutely nothing to do with this commission. What this commission is interested in are these terms of reference,” Sello said.
Sello said any constitutional objections could be raised when Matlala eventually testified.
The consensus reached between the commission’s evidence leaders and Matlala’s legal team has been stood down to September 1; however, Matlala must file his statement before July 29.
ALSO READ: R228m SAPS tender case takes twist as Cat Matlala dumps plea deal
- Controversial businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala requested a postponement of his appearance at the Madlanga Commission, citing the need for his legal team to review records from a failed plea agreement with IDAC before advising him.
- The commission and evidence leaders challenged the postponement, stating the collapsed plea deal was irrelevant to the inquiry’s mandate and insisting Matlala proceed with filing a statement and answering questions.
- Matlala’s lawyer argued the ongoing negotiations tied to the plea deal could impact what Matlala was constitutionally obliged to answer, while the commission chair emphasized the inquiry’s focus was limited to its terms of reference.
- Despite pressure from commissioners to move forward, Matlala’s legal team maintained their ethical obligation to review IDAC materials first, requesting additional time to file a statement within two weeks if granted.
- The commission set a deadline for Matlala to file his statement by July 29, with his appearance postponed until September 1, 2026, while opposition to the postponement maintained the plea deal's irrelevance to the commission’s work.
