Cat Matlala Accuses Former Lawyer Of Influencing His Testimony About Shadrack Sibiya

Businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala has accused his former lawyer, advocate Bronwynne Forbay, of influencing his testimony about former deputy police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya during his appearance before Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee.

The allegations appear in a draft affidavit in which Matlala disputes aspects of his earlier evidence and claims that discussions between Forbay and Sibiya influenced how he answered questions about their relationship.

Matlala alleges that he was instructed to withhold information about his dealings with Sibiya and to provide an account of a visit to the former police official’s residence that he says was untrue.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: NPA To Investigate Teen’s Father And Serge Cabonge Recording In Shadrack Sibiya Case

Forbay has rejected the claims, describing them as “false, unfounded and rejected in the strongest possible terms”.

The allegations have not been independently established in the material available, and the draft affidavit should not be treated as a finding of fact.

Matlala Claims Former Lawyer Directed His Answers

In the draft affidavit, Matlala alleges that his evidence concerning Sibiya was influenced by Forbay.

“The evidence that I gave before the Ad-Hoc Committee in relation to Lt General Shadrack Sibiya (Sibiya) of the SAPS was coerced by Mr Forbay,” Matlala states.

He claims that Forbay instructed him not to disclose the full extent of his relationship with Sibiya. According to the affidavit, Matlala was allegedly told that Sibiya had threatened to kill his family if he revealed everything he knew.

The material provided does not independently establish that Sibiya made such a threat. Sibiya’s response to the allegation was not included.

Matlala further alleges that Forbay contacted Sibiya during adjournments of the parliamentary proceedings and that their conversations influenced how he prepared to answer questions.

“During adjournments at the Ad-Hoc Committee, Mr Forbay (Forbay) would call Sibiya in front of me, and Sibiya would tell him what I am going to be asked and Forbay through Sibiya would direct me how to answer those questions,” the draft affidavit states.

Matlala claims that these alleged exchanges led him to suspect that Sibiya had contact with one or more committee members.

However, the passages cited do not identify any committee member alleged to have communicated with Sibiya. They also do not establish that confidential questions were improperly disclosed.

Matlala’s suspicion therefore remains an allegation rather than proof of misconduct by any committee member.

Dispute Over Visit To Sibiya’s Residence

One of the examples cited in the draft affidavit concerns questions about whether Matlala had visited Sibiya’s home.

Matlala alleges that he was initially instructed to deny visiting the residence but was subsequently told to say that he had been there only once to collect his wife.

The draft affidavit states that he was directed to say he had gone there “once only to pick up my wife”.

Matlala disputes that version of events, alleging that it was not true.

He further claims that Forbay was protecting Sibiya and that the alleged conduct contributed to his decision to terminate the lawyer’s appointment.

“Forbay, in my view, was protecting Sibiya at all costs and I decided to terminate his appointment as my legal representative,” Matlala states.

These claims represent Matlala’s account of the relationship and the legal representation he received. The draft affidavit does not, on its own, establish that Forbay acted improperly or that Matlala’s parliamentary testimony was deliberately altered.

Matlala also alleges that he had not paid Forbay and that he subsequently appointed Hlawu Maluleke Attorneys to represent him. The material provided does not independently establish the circumstances surrounding the change in legal representation.

Forbay Rejects Allegations As False

Forbay has firmly denied Matlala’s claims, defending the process through which his statement was prepared.

He said the preparation of Matlala’s statement was undertaken in conjunction with the evidence leaders, with the initial consultations and drafting forming part of that engagement.

“We remain bound by our professional duties of confidentiality and legal professional privilege. Those duties limit what we can properly disclose about our interactions with Mr Matlala. They do not, however, prevent us from rejecting allegations that cast an unwarranted shadow over the integrity of his former legal representative,” Forbay said.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Shadrack Sibiya Claims 16-Year-Old Had A Crush On Him As He Denies Rape And Grooming Charges

He added that his decision not to disclose privileged information should not be interpreted as an acceptance of any allegation.

The dispute also extends to two mobile phones that Matlala says were seized by police when he was arrested: an iPhone 16 Pro Max and an iPhone 15.

Matlala alleges that the devices were returned but remained in Forbay’s possession after the legal appointment ended. He claims that attempts to retrieve them were unsuccessful and that Forbay later told him the iPhone 16 Pro Max had been stolen from his briefcase at the Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court.

The material provided does not independently establish the circumstances surrounding the phones or whether they contained information relevant to Matlala’s parliamentary testimony.

Matlala also alleges that his wife warned him before his parliamentary appearance that she had received threats against him and his family if he mentioned Sibiya. That claim has not been independently verified in the material cited.

IDAC Declines To Comment On Leaked Documents

The allegations form part of a wider account in which Matlala describes his dealings with senior police officials, alleged payments and efforts to secure a state-witness arrangement. These claims require separate verification and should not be regarded as proven simply because they appear in a draft affidavit.

The Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) declined to comment on the leaked documents.

“IDAC cannot comment on leaked documents. The plea and sentence agreement between IDAC and Vusimuzi Matlala became null and void upon his withdrawal from the deal,” IDAC spokesperson Henry Mamothame said.

He added that the directorate does not comment on subjects of investigations in order to protect the integrity of its work and those involved.

The allegations against Forbay and Sibiya remain disputed, with Forbay rejecting Matlala’s account. The material provided does not establish that Sibiya threatened Matlala’s family or that any parliamentary committee member improperly disclosed questions.