Carrim's legal battle: Gauteng High Court dismisses bid to evade Madlanga Commission testimony

ANC businessman Suliman Carrim will have to testify before the Madlanga Commission after the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, on Thursday dismissed his urgent application in a last-ditch attempt not to appear before the commission.

He turned to court to stop the Madlanga Commission from issuing a subpoena to compel him to testify. He asked for an interim interdict barring the commission from compelling his appearance until part B of his application is heard.

Carrim has been summoned to appear before the Commission on Friday. He asked that the court interdict Justice Mandisa Madlanga from calling on him to file a written statement or subpoenaing him or, in any way, coercing him to appear before the Commission.

Carrim wants the decision to classify him as a witness reviewed and set aside, arguing that he has been deemed an “implicated person” without being afforded what he calls the “principle of natural justice”. He insisted the Commission must first spell out the allegations against him and the evidence relied upon before he can be lawfully compelled to testify.

Carrim also wants the recalling of key witnesses who implicated him in their testimony so that these witnesses may be cross-examined by his legal representatives before he agrees to take the stand at the Commission.

The Commission has directed Carrim to appear on several occasions by way of summons spanning the period from November last year up to the latest summons in terms of which he is to appear tomorrow.

The evidence sought relates to the nature of Carrim’s relationship with Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala, Minister Senzo Mchunu, and General Feroz Khan. Information is sought as to the role that he performed for Matlala in relation to a contract between SAPS and Medicare 24, Mchunu, and the nature and extent of his relationship with named individuals, including General Shadrack Sibiya and Brown Mogotsi.

Witness X told the commission that Carrim received R1.5 million from Matlala shortly after Matlala’s company was paid out on a South African Police Service contract. WhatsApp messages revealed Carrim's involvement in assisting with invoices and payments, boasting about his access to Mchunu.

Additional testimony linked Carrim to more than R3 million in litigation funding channelled through the foundation of Mogotsi. Mogotsi later exonerated Carrim before being accused by the Commission of lying under oath.

Carrim, through his lawyer, objected to his appearance at the Commission, provided his detailed demands for information were met. Judge Denise Fischer commented that it seems that, whilst feigning willingness to co-operate, Carrim is, in fact, placing unreasonable impediments in the way of his evidence before the Commission.

The judge also noted that in November, Carrim, at his request, was provided with WhatsApp correspondence which he will be asked to explain before the Commission, and he was provided with a link to the relevant transcripts of the Commission hearing. Carrim, however, complained that it is too much to work through in the time allowed.

Judge Fischer said it seems that Carrim has from the start tried to stall the inevitable - to face the Commission. “This has continued and is still underway and this application seems to me to be yet another orchestrated part of this stalling stratagem.”

She added that the approach taken by Carrim is overly ambitious in the context of the investigative role which the Commission occupies. “It reflects a lack of understanding of this role and the position of the Commission from a legal perspective. The position adopted is that the applicant {Carrim} will not comply until and unless he is provided with a long list of information relating to his being implicated in relevant activity under investigation.”

Judge Fischer said this is not a position which he is entitled to adopt in the face of the summons. “If every witness before the Commission were entitled to impose conditions under which he would comply with the directions, notices and summonses, the process would be rendered impossible and the constitutional purpose for which it has been convened thwarted".

In striking the matter from the roll, she said the determination of this application in the urgent court was unfeasible.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za