Madlanga rebukes ‘hat trick’ claim as Suliman Carrim says he could be third witness killed

2026-03-06 - 11:23

Businessman and ANC member Suliman Carrim faced sharp criticism after suggesting he could be the next witness to die at the Madlanga commission. Carrim is expected to answer to allegations that he attempted to influence Police Minister Senzo Mchunu in connection with a controversial R360 million South African Police Service (Saps) tender. Suliman Carrim challenges Madlanga commission The Madlanga commission, which is investigating alleged criminality, political interference and corruption within South Africa’s justice system, resumed hearings on Friday at the Brigitte Mabandla Justice College in Pretoria. Carrim’s testimony had previously been postponed last month after his legal team contended that they had not been given enough time to review and study the evidence he must respond to. The delay followed an unsuccessful urgent court application by Carrim to block a subpoena compelling him to testify. ALSO READ: Ekurhuleni awarded R3.4m tender to Cat Matlala’s wife despite ‘red flags’ The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg dismissed the application on 5 February. The allegations before the commission relate to the awarding of a R360 million Saps contract to Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s company, Medicare24 Tshwane District, in June 2024. The contract was later cancelled in May 2025 due to irregularities. Witnesses have alleged that Carrim assisted Matlala, who is an attempted murder accused, when Saps failed to pay invoices submitted by his company. Request for in-camera testimony after ‘death threats’ During Friday’s proceedings, Carrim’s lawyer Kameel Premhid asked the commission to allow his client to testify in camera. Carrim is scheduled to give evidence on 9 and 10 March. Retired judge Mbuyiseli Madlanga questioned the basis for the request, pointing out that other witnesses who had been granted permission to testify privately had presented compelling reasons. “I don’t know what makes this one stand out,” he said. Premhid told the commission that Carrim had been receiving death threats. He told the commission that since his last appearance on 6 February, his client has faced surveillance, and that in-camera testimony would be necessary to protect him. “My client’s position is that he has been subjected to those death threats regardless of the evidence he is going to give,” said Premhid. READ MORE: Sibiya admits sharing confidential audit report on Medicare24 contract with Matlala’s ‘friend’ However, Madlanga stated that Carrim cannot dictate the commission’s proceedings, especially since he failed to submit his statement by the 27 February deadline. “Mr Carrim cannot make his own rules. There was no change to the directive that he should file his statement. “To characterise this as threats is actually totally unacceptable,” the commission’s chairperson said. Following an exchange between legal representatives and a brief adjournment, Madlanga dismissed Carrim’s preliminary request to have his in-camera application heard privately, away from media coverage. In a short ruling, the commission’s chairperson said detailed reasons for the decision would be delivered on Monday. “My direction is to refuse that the main application be heard in camera. That’s my order,” the former judge said. Madlanga criticises ‘offensive’ claim After a short tea break, commission chair Mbuyiseli Madlanga expressed concern over the tone and wording used in Carrim’s in-camera application. “We do have thick skins, but if we have to call something to order I think we should,” he said. Madlanga described the language as “gratuitous and sensationalist”, singling out Carrim’s assertion that the commission would “gamble” with his life because of its “kill rate”. READ MORE: Wiandre Pretorius’ death leaves more questions than answers Carrim had referenced the deaths of two previous witnesses, warning that if anything were to happen to him, it would complete “a hat trick”. “I read this to mean that the commission has killed two people and that Mr Carrim will be the third person it kills if the commission does not grant his application,” Madlanga said. He questioned what evidence there was to support the claim that the commission was responsible for the deaths of two witnesses. Premhid provided a justification for the wording, but also offered an apology, which Madlanga accepted. “I found it quite offensive, but you have apologised,” the chairperson remarked. Adversarial manner Carrim’s lawyer argued that his client’s statement should be withheld from public disclosure, citing concerns for the businessman’s personal safety. Premhid also raised procedural issues, saying that Carrim had previously not received certain documents from the commission in time, which he claimed had placed his client at a disadvantage. He further stated that Carrim felt he is being subjected to an adversarial process, rather than under the commission’s established inquisitorial mandate. “I mentioned the prejudice because it is regrettable that we find ourselves in this position. “Unfortunately, the way my client seems to be treated is in an adversarial manner,” Premhid told the commission. But Madlanga reminded Premhid that earlier witnesses had provided “cogent reasons” and a clear factual basis for requesting to testify in private. “I know the threats don’t come from him, and he says in so many words in his affidavit that he doesn’t know where the threats come from. “But if he sits down and applies his mind, in light of the testimony he is going to give, who does he think could possibly be threatening him?” NOW READ: After abandoning legal bid, Madlanga commission witness ‘hospitalised’