Madlanga Commission Rules Cat Matlala Cannot Use Section 204 to Avoid Testifying
- Alleged underworld figure Vusimuzi 'Cat' Matlala invoked Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act to refuse to answer questions at the Madlanga Commission
- Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga clarified that Section 204 immunity applies only in criminal trials, not before a commission of inquiry
- Matlala faces pending criminal charges linked to the R228 million police Medicare24 tender, and his testimony now falls under different legal protections
PAY ATTENTION: Mark Briefly News as a preferred source, and our content will appear higher in your Google feed!
Source: Getty Images
SOUTH AFRICA — Alleged underworld figure Vusimuzi "Cat" Matlala appeared before the Madlanga Commission and repeatedly declined to answer questions, with his legal team arguing he was protected by Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act due to pending criminal charges, including those linked to the R228 million police Medicare24 tender.
Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga rejected this position outright, drawing a firm distinction between the legal framework governing criminal trials and that which applies to a judicial commission of inquiry.
Section 204 does not apply to commissions
Section 204 operates exclusively within criminal court proceedings. Under that provision, a prosecutor may call a witness to testify, and if the presiding judge finds the evidence to be frank and honest, the witness may receive indemnity from the prosecution for the offences they disclosed. This mechanism has no equivalent before a commission of inquiry, which is a fact-finding body rather than a criminal forum.
PAY ATTENTION: You can now search for all your favourite news and topics on Briefly News.
Matlala's legal team appeared to conflate the two frameworks, an error the commission was quick to correct. Witnesses summoned before the Madlanga Commission cannot demand blanket immunity from the panel, nor can pending criminal cases serve as justification for refusing to testify.
What protection Matlala actually has
The commission's sub-regulations do provide a narrower form of protection known as use immunity. Under this arrangement, any self-incriminating answers a witness gives directly to the commission cannot be submitted as direct evidence against that witness in a subsequent criminal trial, except in cases of perjury or giving false evidence to the commission.
However, this protection has clear limits. Investigators and prosecutors retain full authority to build an independent case using separate evidence that emerges as a consequence of those disclosures. The witness's words before the commission are shielded; the leads those words generate are not.
Matlala's refusals rejected
Matlala's attempts to withhold information about alleged police collusion and tender manipulation were met with firm resistance. Justice Madlanga made the commission's mandate plain: testimony before the inquiry is compelled by law, and the right to silence that exists in a criminal court does not transfer to the witness box at a commission. While Matlala's disclosures before the commission cannot be read out as a confession at his upcoming criminal trial, they afford him no grounds to remain silent during the proceedings themselves.
View the rebuke on X:
Cat Matlala testifies about Hangwani Maumela
In a related article, Briefly News reported on the testimony of Matlala before the Madlanga Commission, focusing on his connections with Hangwani Morgan Maumela. Matlala's acknowledgment of a longstanding friendship accompanied by business dealings has intensified scrutiny of the intricate web of corruption linked to the ongoing investigation.
PAY ATTENTION: Stay informed and follow us on Google News!
Source: Briefly News
