Our Editions:
News

Madlanga Commission Rules Cat Matlala’s Failed Plea Deal Statement Can Be Used In Hearings

Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga dismissed objections from Matlala’s legal team, clearing the way for the statement to be discussed during the commission’s proceedings.

Cat Matlala
Cat MatlalaX

The Madlanga Commission has ruled that the failed plea deal statement of tenderpreneur Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala can be aired in its proceedings. Chairperson Mbuyiseli Madlanga found that the limitation on the statement being ventilated is related solely to a criminal trial. The statement will therefore be used in the proceedings.

Madlanga Commission Ruling On The Matlala Plea Deal Statement

The Madlanga Commission’s decision followed a ruling Madlanga issued on Saturday, asking Matlala’s lawyers and the evidence leaders for submissions on section 105A(10) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

That section governs the legal consequences when a plea and sentence agreement falls away and a criminal trial starts de novo (anew). Madlanga appeared to be arguing that the Act prohibits failed plea-deal documents from being used in the resulting criminal trial, but does not necessarily block them from being referenced in civil proceedings or commissions.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Cat Matlala Accuses Former Lawyer Of Influencing His Testimony About Shadrack Sibiya

Matlala’s deal with the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) collapsed after his eight-year sentence was increased by the presiding magistrate. Under that now-aborted arrangement, he had agreed to testify against a number of high-ranking current and former police officials. He has previously named former top cop Shadrack Sibiya and ex-Police Minister Bheki Cele among them.

Evidence Leaders Defend Use Of The Plea Deal Documents

Evidence leader Mahlape Sello told the commission that Matlala’s lawyers knew from 28 September that the evidence leaders intended to address his aborted plea deal evidence. She said they raised no objections until now.

Sello took the commission through correspondence in which the evidence leaders made clear they wanted to address the material in the documents.

She also revealed that the evidence leaders had been prepared to deal with the statement in an in camera (secret) hearing in October, before changing their minds. Sello argued that Matlala’s objections are “nothing but a stratagem” to frustrate the commission’s investigations.

She added that the commission has the legal power to subpoena the documents from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which had handed them over voluntarily.

Citing case law, Sello argued that the commission cannot be “supine” and ignore evidence relevant to its investigations. She stressed that nothing Matlala says at the commission can be used against him.

She also denied that his affidavit is unsigned, saying it is not the unsigned draft that has been circulating publicly.

Van Den Heever Objects To Matlala Plea Deal Evidence

Matlala’s advocate, Annaline van den Heever, told the commission that allowing the statement to be ventilated would be a “travesty of justice”. She argued that no one would ever agree to plea deals again if that happened. She said it was “acknowledged by all and sundry” that all statements and the plea deal draft would fall away if the deal did not proceed.

Van den Heever claimed Matlala was told by an unnamed IDAC official that he would never have to appear before the commission.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Shadrack Sibiya Denied Bail In Rape And Sexual Grooming Case

She also claimed he was promised a place in the witness protection programme once the deal was finalised. She said the commission “cannot tolerate” IDAC’s improper conduct in handing over his 204 evidence, and described IDAC officials as having “no credibility”.

Commissioner Sesi Baloyi asked how IDAC could have acted unlawfully by complying with a subpoena, and why a statement dealing with Matlala’s appearance before Parliament’s ad hoc committee could not be aired.

Commissioner Sandile Khumalo asked why the commission could not follow leads when Van den Heever conceded that authorities could do so. Van den Heever insisted this would violate Matlala’s rights and that the documents should never have been placed before the commission.

Want to join the conversation?

Checking sign-in…