The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry on Thursday postponed the testimony of businessman Suliman Carrim after being informed that he had been hospitalised and was medically unfit to appear before the inquiry.
Addressing the commission, evidence leader Advocate Matthew Chaskalson said Carrim’s absence was not the only issue confronting the inquiry.
‘We’re running out of time’
Chaskalson told commissioners that several undertakings made by Carrim during his previous testimony in April remained outstanding despite formal requests from the commission.
“We sit in a situation today where this is the second appearance for which Mr Carrim has been medically unfit to appear,” Chaskalson said.
“We’re running out of time. And there are a whole succession of details and documents, which he undertook in evidence to make available, which were then demanded of him in terms of notices, and which have not yet been forthcoming.”
According to Chaskalson, Carrim had failed to respond to requests for documents relating to payments, company financial records, auditor details and communications relevant to the commission’s investigation.
Request for independent medical examination
He also raised concerns that Carrim had not complied with a request to undergo an independent medical examination arranged by the commission.
“The one worrying thing that we see is what the medical reports disclose that Mr Carrim has not been hospitalised continuously since April. He tends to get hospitalised just as his appearances before this commission are scheduled, and that is worrying,” he said.
While accepting that Carrim was unable to testify because of his reported hospitalisation, Chaskalson asked that the matter be postponed until July 15.
He indicated that if an independent specialist confirmed Carrim’s medical incapacity, evidence leaders would no longer insist on his appearance and would instead ask the commission to make findings based on the evidence already before it.
However, Chaskalson warned that a refusal to cooperate with an independent examination could have consequences.
“If Mr Carrim does not agree to be examined by an independent specialist, then we will ask the commission to recommend that he be prosecuted under Section 5 and 6 of the Commissions Act and Regulation 12(2)(4) for hindering the proceedings of the commission,” he said.
Proof of intent
Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga questioned whether any such criminal process would require proof of intent.
“Regarding that proposed criminal process, I would imagine that the mental element would consist of intent,” Madlanga observed.
Chaskalson agreed that the matter would require further investigation, stressing that he was not seeking a ruling immediately.
“I’m not asking the commission to make any decisions at this stage, but I do need to place it on record so that Mr. Carrim and his legal team know where we will be going,” he said.
Context to allegations of non-compliance
Responding on behalf of Carrim, Advocate Kameel Premhid argued that allegations of non-compliance needed to be viewed in the context of his client’s medical condition.
“It was explicitly stated to the commission that the legal team, as creatures of instruction, cannot act without instructions from their client,” Premhid said.
He argued that Carrim’s inability to provide documents or instructions was not deliberate.
“The allegation of not complying must be put in its proper context, that it’s not willful, and it’s because the ability to deliver those documents is directly hamstrung as a result of Mr Carrim’s medical condition.”
Premhid told the commission that multiple medical reports had already been submitted and showed that Carrim was not only unable to attend proceedings but was also unable to engage fully with his legal representatives.
Commission’s powers
A lengthy exchange followed between Madlanga and Premhid on the commission’s proposal that Carrim undergo an independent medical examination.
Madlanga highlighted that such assessments were common in other legal disputes.
“In the context of claims arising from bodily injury and medical malpractice, such examination happens as a matter of course,” the chairperson said.
Premhid responded that the commission’s powers to compel such an examination remained unclear.
“There is no equivalent procedure in the regulations, the Act, the rules, or the commission’s own rules, that remotely cater for an equivalent procedure,” he argued.
The advocate further cautioned that compelling such an examination could raise legal concerns regarding privacy and medical rights.
‘Certain allegations have not been answered’
Madlanga suggested that the commission could not simply disregard evidence already placed before it.
“I think it would be quite odd if, for example, we were suddenly to say a lot of evidence was heard before the commission, but because Mr. Carrim could not have his last word on it, therefore everything that relates to that bit will just be ignored,” he said.
Premhid agreed that commissioners would ultimately have to evaluate the evidence before them.
“Of course, it will be a fact that certain allegations have not been answered. One takes it no higher than that.”
The commission postponed the matter to July 15, when it is expected to determine whether Carrim can resume his testimony or whether it must proceed on the basis of the evidence already before it.
Read More: North West businessman Suliman Carrim’s counsel clashes with Judge Mbuyiseli Madlanga
- The Madlanga Commission postponed businessman Suliman Carrim's testimony due to his reported hospitalisation and medical unfitness to appear.
- Carrim has failed to provide outstanding documents despite formal requests, and has not complied with a request for an independent medical examination, raising concerns about his cooperation.
- The commission warned that refusal to undergo independent medical assessment could lead to prosecution for hindering proceedings under the Commissions Act.
- Carrim’s lawyer argued his non-compliance stems from his medical incapacity, preventing him from instructing his legal team or providing documents, and questioned the commission's authority to compel medical examinations.
- The commission will reconvene on July 15 to decide whether Carrim can continue testifying or if it should proceed based on existing evidence.
