Alleged criminal mastermind Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala is struggling to explain his changing versions of events after admitting under oath that he misled Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee about his visit to the home of former Deputy National Police Commissioner Shadrack Sibiya.
Testifying at the Madlanga Commission on Tuesday, Matlala was confronted by Evidence Leader Advocate Thabang Pooe over his previous denial that he had been invited to a celebration at Sibiya’s home.
Before Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee, Matlala denied being invited to the gathering.
At the Madlanga Commission, he initially offered a different explanation for his presence at Sibiya’s home. However, under questioning, he admitted that his earlier account was false.
The tense exchange unfolded as follows:
TP: “Did you lie to the Ad Hoc Committee?”
VM: “Advocate, I can explain that on your other platform.”
TP: “Explain it on my other platform?”
Advocate Sandile Khumalo intervened, reminding Matlala that he was not being asked to explain why he had lied, but simply to confirm whether he had knowingly given Parliament false information.
“Mr Matlala, if what you are telling us today is different from what you told the Ad Hoc Committee, it means either you misled the Ad Hoc Committee or you are misleading us. It must be that way.
“If you said yes here and you said no there, it means you misled one of the two bodies. It’s as simple as that.
“So you don’t need to go in camera to confirm that, because we have the transcript where you say you were not invited. You are confirming before us that you were invited. The simple answer is you misled the Ad Hoc Committee.”
Khumalo further explained that Matlala could be questioned separately about his reasons for giving conflicting accounts.
Matlala eventually conceded:
“I agree with you.”
A growing list of disowned statements
Matlala, who claims to fear for his life, has already disowned several previous statements and accounts given under oath, alleging that threats, medication and pressure from others influenced his testimony.
Among his claims to the Commission are that:
- He was heavily medicated when he made statements to IDAC investigators in March.
- Sibiya allegedly threatened him and warned his wife, Tsakani, to stop him from disclosing their relationship to Parliament.
- His former lawyer, Advocate Bronwynne Forbay, allegedly coached him during breaks in his Ad Hoc Committee testimony.
- IDAC investigators Dylan Perumal and Brian Padayachee allegedly pressured him to include the names of people supposedly protecting Sibiya, including former IPID head Robert McBride.
Matlala claimed that he had never seen McBride at the relevant gathering.
“Mr McBride, they said I must add him, because if I do not add people who are protecting General Sibiya, those people, they know that they are his friends. So Mr McBride, I never saw him there.”
He also disowned paragraph 61 of his statement, telling the Commission that he did not confirm its contents.
Why the Commission is scrutinising his testimony
Matlala’s credibility is central to several serious allegations being examined by the Commission, including claims that:
- He paid Sibiya R500,000.
- He handed Sibiya R50,000 at the SAPS Excellence Awards in KwaZulu-Natal.
- Sibiya helped protect his controversial R360-million Medicare24 tender.
- Senior police officials formed part of a network that protected criminal interests.
These allegations remain to be tested, and Sibiya has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing in relation to them.
With Matlala now admitting that he gave Parliament a false account, the Commission faces the difficult task of determining which parts of his testimony, if any, can be relied upon.
On Monday, Commission chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga ruled that the inquiry could examine statements Matlala made in connection with his failed plea agreement, despite restrictions on their use against him in criminal proceedings.
That ruling paved the way for Tuesday’s detailed examination of his previous statements.
Matlala remains on the witness stand, with his dealings with Sibiya and other senior police officials expected to remain under intense scrutiny.
He maintains that his current version is truthful. The allegations against Sibiya remain unproven and are subject to the Commission’s investigation.