Madlanga Commission: Vusimuzi Matlala’s Lawyers Threaten to Withdraw if Postponement Is Denied

• Advocate Fatima Missi, representing Vusimuzi Matlala at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, requested a postponement
• Missi, who is filling in for Advocate Annelene van den Heever, indicated what would happen if the request was not granted by the Commission
• There was some confusion after Justice Mbuyisel Madlanga questioned Matlala about the decision, but Cat didn't know what was happening either

Byron Pillay, a Briefly News journalist, has dedicated a decade to reporting on the South African political landscape, crime, and social issues. He worked as a newspaper journalist for 10 years before transitioning to online.

GAUTENG — A tense procedural standoff erupted at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry on 24 August 2026, after lawyers for Vusimuzi "Cat" Matlala threatened to withdraw from proceedings unless the commission agreed to a postponement.

Advocate Fatima Missi, appearing for Matlala at the Brigitte Mabandla Justice College, told the panel that her client would not testify in the absence of his lead counsel, Advocate Annelene van den Heever, who had been hospitalised that morning. Missi stated that Matlala considered himself improperly represented under those conditions and was unwilling to proceed.

Read also

Jub Jub's warrant of arrest issued after he misses court date

Matlala's appearance before the Commission follows his decision to walk away from a plea arrangement with the State in the Medicare24 Tshwane SAPS tender case. He had initially pleaded guilty and was reportedly prepared to implicate other officers who had not faced charges. His withdrawal came after the presiding judge proposed a harsher sentence than the State first offered him.

Matlala's team outlines two possible outcomes

When asked directly how things would unfold if the commission pressed ahead, Missi outlined two scenarios: either she and her junior would be removed from the brief, or the commission could issue a ruling setting a strict deadline for the urgent interdict application to be filed. She confirmed the interdict would be brought in the High Court and that its timeline would fall outside the legal team's control.

Missi also said that Matlala agreed that his legal team would not represent him if the postponement was not granted. However, when Matlala was asked about this, he said that he was in the dark and was not sure if they got that directive from Advocate Van Den Heever.

Commission questions lack of formal postponement application

Chairperson, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga pressed Missi repeatedly on why no substantive written postponement application had been filed. He pointed out that the unavailability of the replying affidavit and heads of argument had been a known issue for some time.

Read also

South Africans slam Fadiel Adams over racial remarks in resurfaced video about Brigadier Mokwele

Missi explained that the team had not anticipated that Van Den Heever would fall ill so suddenly. She told the commission that they had received a letter, indicating that proceedings would continue in the absence of a postponement application, at around 7 am in the parking lot of the hearing venue. She maintained that had they known the night before, a written application would have been prepared.

Matlala explains why he hates Brown Mogotsi

Briefly News reported that Cat Matlala testified before the Madlanga Commission about his relationship with Brown Mogotsi.

The controversial tenderpreneur noted that the political fixer approached him, claiming to represent Senzo Mchunu's office.

Matlala explained why he had questions about some of the information and claims that Mogotsi was giving him.

Source: Briefly News