Madlanga Commission | Matlala accused of misleading inquiry about business dealings

Alleged underworld figure, Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala, came under intense scrutiny at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, with evidence leaders accusing him of being evasive about his business dealings and multimillion-rand payments linked to controversial businessman, Morgan Maumela.

Matlala returned to the witness stand on Tuesday as the commission delved deeper into his financial affairs, focusing on the flow of money linked to lucrative tenders awarded to his companies.

He told the commission that he and Maumela frequently invested in suppliers of medical consumables, from whom they would source products when needed.

According to Matlala, the suppliers would provide the medical products on credit, with the value of the supplies later repaid, along with a 10% profit.

But the explanation appeared to raise more questions than answers.

The commission’s evidence leader, Advocate Mahlape Sello, pressed Matlala on the source of the money he claimed to have invested.

The questioning has placed the spotlight on the origins of funds used in Matlala’s business dealings, amid concerns over whether some of the transactions may have been used to facilitate money laundering.

Matlala’s legal team, meanwhile, challenged the commission’s attempt to question him about a letter relating to a R5 million loan he says he received from late taxi boss, Jothan “Mswazi” Msibi.

Matlala confirmed that the loan was linked to the controversial Medicare24 Tshwane District tender, which has since been revoked.

He told the commission that Msibi provided the R5 million as an advance to enable him to purchase medical consumables needed to fulfil the South African Police Service (SAPS) tender.

However, Matlala’s lead counsel, Advocate Anneline van den Heever, objected to the line of questioning, arguing that the letter is linked to ongoing court proceedings.

Van den Heever said the defence was seeking to protect Matlala’s right to a fair trial and asked Sello for  an assurance that he would not be questioned about portions of the letter that are being contested in court.

But in a dramatic exchange, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, asked van den Heever to produce the indictment in Matlala’s criminal matters as proof that the letter forms part of the ongoing litigation.

The advocate was unable to provide a definitive response.

The commission nevertheless continued probing Matlala about multimillion-rand payments that he says he cannot remember discussing with Msibi.

Evidence before the commission indicates that proof of payments showed Maumela as the recipient of funds transferred by several companies.

Matlala maintained that he could not remember why he forwarded some of the proof of payment documents to Msibi and insisted that he did not know the companies that allegedly transferred the money to Maumela.

Among those identified was Cigar Lounge, which reportedly paid at least R4.3 million, while Wafra Consulting allegedly transferred as much as R700,000.

The commission also heard that some of the companies that made substantial payments to Maumela may previously have conducted business with entities associated with Matlala.

Sello suggested that Matlala could be withholding information because Msibi, who allegedly played a role in the transactions, is now deceased and unable to account for the payments.

Commissioner, Sesi Baloyi, also questioned how Matlala could have no recollection of the purpose of such substantial amounts, particularly when WhatsApp exchanges between him and Msibi appear to shed light on the transactions.

The messages appear to show Matlala directing Msibi to a specific Nedbank account into which funds were to be deposited.

The commission’s probing of Matlala’s financial affairs was also marked by heated exchanges between his legal team and the evidence leaders.

Tensions erupted early in Tuesday’s proceedings after Van den Heever objected to what she described as the volume and relevance of questions being put to her client.

She initially complained that Sello was speaking too softly for her to properly hear and understand the questions.

Van den Heever also challenged the relevance of questions relating to audio recordings that the commission intends to use during its examination of Matlala.

She demanded clarity on how the recordings related to the questions being put to her client and his broader testimony.

Clearly frustrated by the repeated objections, Sello cautioned van den Heever against attempting to dictate how she should conduct her examination.

“If Advocate van den Heever is interested in what I intend to have for lunch, that’s a conversation we will have outside. She is not going to preempt my line of questioning. Only if we get to the point where she says I failed to do so, then I suggest that she has no basis to be interrupting my examination of a witness. So if you will, I have posed a question to the witness. I would like the witness to answer,” Sello said.

The tense exchanges underscored the increasingly combative nature of Matlala’s appearance before the commission, as investigators continue to probe the money trail surrounding his businesses, tenders and alleged links to influential figures.

Written by: Odirile Rabalao