A tense moment at the commission as Chair Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga pushes back against Rafik Bhana, lawyer for Suliman Carrim, after Bhana suggested the commission may have already prejudged Carrim's postponement bid.
Image: Oupa Mokoena / Independent Newspapers
Fresh revelations that millions of Rand in additional payments from Tasmica Construction flowed into the Medicare24 account without being disclosed by Suliman Carrim sparked a tense confrontation at the Madlanga Commission on Tuesday.
The disclosure prompted Carrim’s legal team to seek time to assess the new evidence, triggering a heated exchange between commission chair Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga and Carrim’s lawyer Rafik Bhana SC over a possible postponement application.
Proceedings at the Madlanga Commission were briefly halted after new financial records emerged showing over R2 million in previously undisclosed payments linked to Tasmica Construction.
The payments, which were allegedly deposited into the Medicare24 account, were not initially disclosed by Carrim, raising fresh questions during the inquiry.
Carrim’s legal team requested time to consult with their client and consider the implications of the new evidence, indicating they might bring a formal postponement application.
During discussions about how long Carrim’s lawyers would need, evidence leader Matthew Chaskalson SC, suggested a short break of between 45 minutes and an hour.
However, Carrim’s lead counsel Rafik Bhana SC said the legal team would require at least two hours, adding that they might need more time depending on the consultation.
The discussion escalated when Bhana suggested that Madlanga appeared to have already formed a view on a possible postponement application.
“Chair, I think at least two hours… but it seems then that you’ve prejudged an application,” Bhana said.
Madlanga immediately rejected the suggestion and expressed strong objection to the remark.“Mr Bhana, I take strong exception to that,” Madlanga responded.
The commission chair said Bhana’s comment implied improper conduct and stressed that judges frequently question lawyers during proceedings without prejudging the outcome.
“You are an experienced counsel,” Madlanga said.
The chairperson explained that judges would engage a legal representative during argument sometimes to the extent that you think they are against you but in the end, “you may be surprised when the judgment goes in your favour.”
Madlanga said engaging counsel during proceedings was standard legal practice and did not mean that the matter had already been decided.
“Engaging counsel has nothing to do with matters being prejudged, and you know that,” he said.
“I take very strong exception to that attitude. In fact, I find it unprofessional for you to suggest that I have prejudged issues simply because I am engaging you.”
Bhana responded that he had understood Madlanga to have said the commission would not allow time for a postponement application but would allow a short stand-down only to review the new documents.
Madlanga denied making such a statement.“I did not say that. We can play back the tape,” he said.
Bhana then acknowledged that he may have misunderstood the chair’s remarks.
“If I was mistaken, then I was mistaken,” he said, adding that the official record would clarify what had been said.
Madlanga insisted that Bhana apologise for suggesting that he had acted improperly.“Are you tendering an apology for this?” he asked.
Bhana responded that he would apologise if he had misunderstood the statement.
Madlanga initially rejected the response, describing it as a qualified apology but he later after a short adjournment, accepted the apology.
As the two spoke over each other, Bhana maintained that the recording would confirm the exchange, saying: “What’s good for you is good for me.”
Madlanga denied that he ever said anything about prejudgment.
The commission resumed at 11:45am after a short adjournment.
kamogelo.moichela@iol.co.za
IOL Politics