Madlanga Commission | Matlala’s R50k claim and failed plea deal take centre stage

Alleged underworld kingpin, Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala, has made a shocking claim at the Madlanga Commission, saying he handed former senior police official, Shadrack Sibiya, R50,000 at the Police Ministry’s Excellence Awards in KwaZulu-Natal.

Matlala disputed claims that he had visited Sibiya’s office to offer him the money, insisting that the alleged payment took place at the awards ceremony.

He also suggested that the amount could have been higher.

However, the alleged payment was not the only issue to come under scrutiny during Matlala’s testimony.

He claimed that his Section 204 statement had been amended several times and that he was pressured into signing it on three or four occasions.

Matlala told the commission he signed the statement without reading it or taking an oath.

The claims came as the commission resumes public hearings following a month of closed-door proceedings.

Earlier, chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, dismissed the defence’s objections to the use of documents handed over by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

Madlanga ruled that the commission could continue using documents linked to Matlala’s failed plea agreement unless a court granted an interdict preventing their use.

“The nullity of the statement that is at issue does not apply to a situation that is outside of the criminal proceedings, that’s the introductory part of the section that is that when criminal proceedings that are contemplated to have started. Therefore I reject the submissions made by Mr. Matlala’s legal representatives that the section 204 statement cannot be used in these proceedings,” Madlanga said.

Matlala’s legal team, led by Advocate Anneline van den Heever, has argued that the failed plea negotiations should have no place in the commission’s proceedings.

The defence maintains that Matlala withdrew from the agreement in July 2026 after a court rejected the proposed eight-year sentence as too lenient.

Relying on Section 105A(10) of the Criminal Procedure Act, van den Heever argued that the criminal trial should start afresh and that details of the failed negotiations could not be used against her client.

She has also accused the NPA of breaching its agreement by handing the statement to the commission, describing its use as a travesty of justice.

“I was shocked and appalled when my learned friend told me that they have been given this statement  by the NPA. That means the NPA doesn’t care about the Criminal Procedure Act. They don’t care about their own regulations that are issued under section 105(A).

“It doesn’t care about their word to other people. In fact what they did is totally contradictory to the provisions of Section 105(A) by just handing it over because there was a solemn agreement as stipulated in section 105(A) that non of the negotiations nor any part of the agreement would be made available to anybody else once the actual plea and sentence agreement doesn’t come to its fruition,” Advocate van den Heeever said.