The Madlanga Commission is mulling referring North West businessman Suliman Carrim for criminal prosecution over his failure to undergo an independent medical assessment.
This after a fierce clash between chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga and Carrim’s lawyer, Kameel Premhid.
Madlanga told Premhid what the commission was considering:
“The commission is minded to refer Mr. Carrim for criminal process. In fact let me say the commission will lay criminal charges against Mr. Carrim.”
He made it clear that the ultimate decision would lie with the relevant authorities, saying the matter could go to the police or National Prosecuting Authority.
But Premhid argued that Carrim’s refusal could not simply be treated as wilful non-compliance.
Read: Madlanga orders Suliman Carrim to testify or undergo independent medical evaluation
His central argument was that the commission was questioning the objectivity of Carrim’s treating doctor without first properly challenging the doctor.
“I think, Chair, you’ve actually articulated why the doctor is more necessary, not less necessary, if his objectivity is in doubt.”
He argued that the doctor should be impugned through the ordinary mechanisms of litigation before the commission went directly to Carrim.
“If his objectivity is in doubt, which is not necessarily the same regarding the rightness or otherwise of his clinical conclusions, then it’s him, as the doctor, offering that evidence, who has to be impugned.”
Madlanga rejected that approach.
The chairperson said the commission wanted an independent assessment of Carrim himself, not another examination of his treating doctor’s evidence.
And then he analysed the doctor’s role throughout the proceedings.
“We do not consider Mr. Carrim’s doctor to be an objective expert.”
He said the doctor was closely associated with Carrim and appeared to be pushing his client’s version.
“So very close to, if not analogous, to what courts have referred to as a hired gun,” said Madlanga.
Madlanga said this was reinforced by what he regarded as changes in the doctor’s account concerning Carrim’s movements outside the medical facility.
“He changes his story, on factual issues, not issues related to Mr. Carrim’s condition, on factual issues.”
Madlanga referred specifically to the Woolworths and Kauai visits, saying the doctor had initially indicated that patients could only leave if he permitted them to do so but later said nurses could also allow patients out.
“I am not saying he’s lying. All I’m saying is, sitting where we are sitting, we just cannot accept what he says,” Madlanga added.
Premhid’s response was that the doctor had offered to appear before the commission and be questioned.
He also attacked the prospect of criminal action, saying the relevant test would be wilfulness.
“Number one, the test would be wilfulness for any such breach or noncompliance. We say that the threshold is not met, having regard to the medical evidence that is in front of you,” said Premhid.
Premhid further argued that criminal referral was the most extreme option available when other mechanisms remained open.
“A criminal recommendation in the circumstances is the most extreme option available.”
However, Madlanga decided “the commission will direct the relevant functionary to lay a criminal charge against Mr. Carrim, not to make a recommendation. If the commission were not to do that it would itself not be taking its processes seriously. This is something the commission has to do otherwise witnesses will choose to come or not to come testify before it willy-nilly, we cannot and we will not have that.”
Carrim previously appeared before the Madlanga Commission in March 2026, where he testified about his financial dealings with Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala, including his claim that he invested about R10 million in Matlala’s Medicare24 business and later facilitated a payment to Hangwani Maumela.
ALSO READ: Madlanga demands answers after Carrim spotted in Cape Town
- The Madlanga Commission is considering referring North West businessman Suliman Carrim for criminal prosecution due to his refusal to undergo an independent medical assessment.
- Chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga declared the commission will lay criminal charges against Carrim, with the ultimate decision to be made by police or the National Prosecuting Authority.
- Carrim's lawyer, Kameel Premhid, argued that Carrim's refusal was not wilful non-compliance and that the commission should first challenge the objectivity of Carrim's treating doctor through litigation.
- Madlanga dismissed the doctor's evidence as biased and unreliable, describing the doctor as closely associated with Carrim and inconsistent on factual matters like patient movements outside the facility.
- Madlanga decided the commission would direct the relevant functionary to lay criminal charges against Carrim, stating this is necessary to uphold the commission’s processes and ensure witnesses comply with testimony requirements.
"
commission is minded to refer Mr. Carrim for criminal process. In fact let me say the commission will lay criminal charges against Mr. Carrim." The
He made it clear that the ultimate decision would lie with the relevant authorities, saying the matter could go to the police or National
But Premhid argued that Carrim's refusal could not simply be treated as wilful non-compliance.
Read:
His central argument was that the commission was questioning the objectivity of Carrim's treating doctor without first properly challenging the doctor.
"I think, Chair, you've actually articulated why the doctor is more necessary, not less necessary, if his objectivity is in doubt."
He argued that the doctor should be impugned through the ordinary mechanisms of litigation before the commission went directly to Carrim.
"If his objectivity is in doubt, which is not necessarily the same regarding the rightness or otherwise of his clinical conclusions, then it's him, as the doctor, offering that evidence, who has to be impugned."
"We do not consider Mr. Carrim's doctor to be an objective expert."
He said the doctor was closely associated with Carrim and appeared to be pushing his client's version.
"So very close to, if not analogous, to what courts have referred to as a hired gun," said
"He changes his story, on factual issues, not issues related to Mr. Carrim's condition, on factual issues."
"I am not saying he's lying. All I'm saying is, sitting where we are sitting, we just cannot accept what he says,"
Premhid's response was that the doctor had offered to appear before the commission and be questioned.
He also attacked the prospect of criminal action, saying the relevant test would be wilfulness.
"
Premhid further argued that criminal referral was the most extreme option available when other mechanisms remained open.
"A criminal recommendation in the circumstances is the most extreme option available."
However,
Carrim previously appeared before the
ALSO READ:
