Commissioners at the Madlanga commission of inquiry said they were not convinced that police Brigadier Rachel Matjeng had been romantically involved with businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala.
This after they highlighted the absence of affectionate language in their communication as a major inconsistency in her version.
The issue arose during Matjeng’s testimony before the commission on Thursday, where chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga interrogated her on how she and Matlala interacted as alleged romantic partners.
Madlanga asked whether they used common terms of endearment such as “love”, “babe” or “honey” in their WhatsApp chats.
No terms of endearment in chats
“I am not a romantic person, so the only thing I can do in a relationship is give the other person a pet name. I called him Mr V, and he called me “diva”,” she replied.
Madlanga told the hearing that he had examined all the WhatsApp messages between the two. He said he found that the chats appeared formal and business-like.
“The limited use of any pet names raises doubts about the existence of the romantic relationship you claim to have had.”
Matjeng explained that while the written communication was restrained, they spoke frequently on the phone.
However, Madlanga rejected this explanation. He said it did not make sense that two people in a romantic relationship would communicate differently in text messages than they did verbally.
Part of trying to keep affair secret
Matjeng then suggested that because Matlala was married, they avoided affectionate language in writing. This was to prevent his wife from discovering the relationship.
“Most of the time we tried to keep it professional,” she said.
Madlanga pointed out that Matjeng had asked Matlala for large sums of money. The amounts ran into hundreds of thousands of rands.
He said that undermined her explanation and cast serious doubt on her claim that they were romantically involved.
“The very fact that you did not use any terms of endearment suggests to me that you were not romantically involved,” Madlanga said.
Matjeng rejected this conclusion. She insisted that her relationship with Matlala could be confirmed by people within her social circle. These include family members, friends and colleagues.
Cash was for new car
The hearing also examined the financial assistance Matjeng received from Matlala.
She testified that in September 2023 her vehicle was destroyed by fire, leaving her without a private mode of transport.
Additionally, she said she received a judgement that made it difficult for her to obtain vehicle finance. And she informed Matlala that she needed money to make a payment on a vehicle.
She clarified a text that she sent to Matlala telling him that she was “in trouble” and that “people were after her”. She was referring to a letter from attorneys about the vehicle judgement.
Before Matlala could send her money, he gave an instruction that she get a different account. This was because he did not want his wife to find out.
Cash sent to friend’s account
“Matlala previously transferred money directly into my bank account while he was married to his former wife. However, after marrying his current wife [Tsakane], he stopped direct payments to avoid raising suspicion,” she stated.
She said Matlala later transferred R300, 000 to one of her friends’ bank accounts instead. But she claimed she never received the money because the friend said Matlala owed her.
Commissioners questioned why there was no record in calls or WhatsApp messages showing that Matjeng informed Matlala that the funds had not reached her.
Commissioner Sesi Baloyi asked how Matlala was made aware of this if it was not reflected in their communications.
Matjeng replied that they had met in person between calls and messages, during which the issue was discussed.
