Mr Matlala

Mr Matlala confirms he has a previous conviction for housebreaking and theft, sentenced to an effective eight-year prison term, of which he served 18 months.

“I confirm that I have a previous conviction of house breaking and theft, to which I was sentenced to an effective eight-year prison term. I served 18 months of this...”

Mr Matlala confirms he was previously charged with offences that were later withdrawn, as listed in Annexure VM1 (pages 18-19).

“I can confirm that I was previously charged with offences that were later withdrawn. I attach hereto as Annexure VM 1 a list of the offences that I was charged with, which were later withdrawn.”

Mr Matlala is currently facing charges of attempted murder and money laundering in High Court Johannesburg case SS 98/2025, arrested 14 May 2025 by PKT members, trial 20 July 2026 to 18 Sept 2026.

“I confirm that I am currently facing two separate pending matters... I have a pending case in the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, under the case number SS 98/2025. I was arrested and charged by members of the PKT on the 14th day of May 2025... charges of attempted murder and money laundering”

Mr Matlala is facing corruption and money laundering charges in Specialised Commercial Crimes Court case A16/212/26, charged 24 March 2026, related to Health tender awarded by SAPS to Medicare 24 Tshwane (Pty) Ltd, of which he was sole director.

“I am also facing a case that is pending before the Specialised Commercial Crimes Court under case number A16/212/26. I was formally charged with corruption and money laundering on the 24th day of March 2026... with respect to the Health... tender awarded by SAPS to Medicare 24 Tshwane (Pty) Ltd. I confirm that at the time of submission of the bid and the subsequent award of the tender, I was the sole director of Medicare 24.”

Mr Matlala became involved in security business in 2017 as director of CAT Protection and Security (Pty) Ltd trading as CAT VIP Protection (reg 2017/177122/07).

“I first became involved in the security business on or during 2017. I became a director of CAT Protection and Security (Pty) Ltd trading as CAT VIP Protection with registration number 2017/177122/07.”

Mr Matlala became involved in health sector around 2018 by registering Black AK Trading and Suppliers on the Central Supplier Database (CSD).

“I became involved in the health sector by means of registering my company to the Central Supply Data base... Black AK Trading and Suppliers... around 2018.”

Mr Matlala is facing pending criminal charges before the Specialised Commercial Crimes Court in respect of the Medicare tender.

“I am currently facing a criminal charge which is pending before the Specialised Commercial Crimes Court with respect to the Medicare tender.”

Mr Matlala's company provided security at a State of the City address in Ekurhuleni.

“we have evidence... that your company provided security at a State of the City address in Ekurhuleni. ... Yes, this is what I am referring to.”

The following SAPS officials are co-accused with Mr Matlala in the criminal case regarding the SAPS Medicare tender: General Fannie Masemola, Brigadier Rachel Matjeng, Brigadier Alpheus Thembinkosi Ngema, Patrick Nethengwe, Brigadier Kirsty Jonker, Brigadier Petunia Reabetsoe Lenono, Brigadier Onica Ofentse Tlhoaele, Colonel Anton Paulsen, Colonel Natseng Johannes Monyai, Colonel Nonjabulo Nomfundo Mngadi, Colonel Tumisho Nehemiah Maleka, Captain Brian Neville Cartwright, and Major General Busisiwe Precious Temba.

“The following SAPS officials are my co-accused in the criminal case with respect to the SAPS Medicare tender... General Fannie Masemola, Brigadier Rachel Matjeng...”

Mr Matlala has no relationship with Minister Senzo Mchunu, has never met him, had no interactions with him, and does not know him.

“I place on record that I do not have any relationship with Minister Mchunu. I have never met Minister Mchunu and have had no interactions with him, nor have I been at any gatherings where he was present. It suffices to say that I do not know Minister Mchunu.”

Mr Matlala knows General Phahlane but meetings occurred after Phahlane left SAPS employment; no business dealings, no favours asked or offered.

“I place on record that I know General Phahlane. I am unable to recall how many times I have met with him and place on record that these meetings were, to the best of my knowledge and belief, at the time when he was no longer with the employ of the SAPS. I confirm that I have no business dealings with General Phahlane, nor have I ever asked for any favours from him or offered him any gratifications.”

Mr Matlala knows and met Lt Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi once, in relation to the Medicare 24 tender case for which he is facing charges.

“I place on record that I know and have on one occasion met Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi. I do not have any relationship with him.”

Mr Matlala states he has no relationship with Lieutenant General Fani Molefe, has never met him, had no interactions, and was never at any gatherings where he was present.

“I place on record that I do not have any relationship with Lieutenant General Molefe Fani. I have never met him and have had no interactions with him, nor have I been at any gatherings where he was present.”

Mr Matlala states he has no relationship with Major General Khan, has never met him, had no interactions, and was never at any gatherings where he was present, and does not know him.

“I place on record that I do not have any relationship with Major General Khan. I have never met him and have had no interactions with him, nor have I been at any gatherings where he was present. It suffices to say that I do not know him.”

In the meeting with Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi, the matters discussed were the Medicare 24 tender/contract and the warrant of arrest for the case Mr Matlala is charged with in the Johannesburg High Court.

“other than the Medicare tender, we also discussed the warrant that he, they had by then of my arrest, so but the warrant is for the case that I am currently charged with in the Johannesburg High Court”

Mr Matlala met Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi in Durban around March 2025 to discuss the Medicare 24 contract (on which he faces criminal charges) and a warrant of arrest for the Johannesburg case.

“Yes, I just checked it now. It is this case on 7.1.”

Mr Matlala requested the meeting with Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi and General Senona in April 2025 in Durban.

“I asked for the meeting. ... Yes, that is correct.”

Mr Maluleke stayed at Mr Matlala's house after being robbed and was contacted to testify against General Khan, with Mr Mogotsi involved in requesting testimony in favour of Khan.

“Mr Maluleke, I know him. He was staying at my house. ... he already spoken to some guy, Mr Mogotsi, and Mr Mogotsi asked him to go there and then to testify, but I do not know what he was supposed to say in his testimony.”

Mr Matlala was not himself required to testify at General Khan's disciplinary hearing.

“No, not myself, no, no, no.”

Mr Matlala declines to answer questions about delivery of Impalas to General Sibiya or any gratifications, invoking right against self-incrimination as the matter is under investigation.

“I do not want to incriminate myself because I know that the recordings are under investigation.”

The entire recording containing mention of Impalas delivered to General Sibiya is under investigation by state advocates.

“what I know is that they are saying that recording itself is under investigation”

Mr Matlala has listened to the recording and confirms the Impalas issue features in it but is uncertain if it is specifically under investigation.

“I have listened to the recording. That is why I am saying I know that the Impala issue is part of the recording.”

Mr Matlala is unable to respond to questions in paragraph 2.3.3 regarding the circumstances of Sergeant Fannie Nkosi possessing the Luxor Africa Brand card, periods of possession, and its use, because answering may incriminate him in the pending Medicare tender case before the Specialised Commercial Crimes Court where Luxor Africa Brand is his co-accused.

“Luxor Africa Brand is my co-accused in the Medicare tender matter, and as such I am unable to respond to the question posed on the paragraph under reply. I am of the view that I may incriminate myself by answering questions related to Nkosi and Luxor Africa in view of the pending case before the Specialised Commercial Crimes Court.”

Mr Matlala has been transferring funds from his Medicare account to Luxor Africa Brand company, which has been charged with money laundering due to monies from the SAPS tender.

“So the funds that, I have been transferring funds from my Medicare account to this company. And so this company has been charged with money laundering because they have been following all the monies that have been coming from the SAPS tender.”

Sergeant Nkosi is not an accused in the Medicare tender case referenced by Mr Matlala.

“Sergeant Nkosi is not an accused in the case you reference here, is he? ... No, he is not.”

The loan agreement with Mr Suleiman Karim (or his companies) forms part of an ongoing criminal matter (Medicare) pending before court, and answering questions about it may lead to self-incrimination.

“The loan agreement referred to herein is part of an ongoing criminal matter, and as such I am unable to respond to the question posed on the paragraph under reply. I am of the view that I may incriminate myself by answering questions related to this loan agreement as I believe it forms part of the Medicare criminal matter which is pending before Court.”

A financial investigation is being carried out by SAPS with respect to all monies paid by SAPS into Medicare and any transaction made in general within Medicare bank accounts.

“I was advised that there is a financial investigation being carried out with respect to all monies paid by SAPS into Medicare and any transaction made in general within Medicare bank accounts”

The loan from Mr Karim was repaid using monies paid by SAPS into Medicare accounts.

“I was paying the money back to Mr Karim from the monies paid by SAPS”

The loan agreement with Mr Suleiman Karim was concluded orally around June 2024 for the purpose of funding the Medicare contract.

“It was oral. ... the purpose of the loan was because of to fund the Medicare contract”

Mr Matlala appeared before the Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee and there are recordings mentioning people who were referred to in that appearance; he will address whether he was induced or threatened to give false evidence in a supplementary affidavit.

“this is one of the things that will be in our supplementary affidavit. ... in the recordings there are people that are mentioned here, which have been mentioned in the Ad Hoc Committee”

Mr Matlala did not address question 2.3.6 in his statement because he is disputing the legality and authenticity of the recordings and was preparing to dispute them at a later stage.

“Yes, it is because these are some of the things that I am disputing. So I actually was supposed to at least say in my first affidavit that I am disputing the legality”

Mr Matlala chose not to invoke self-incrimination privilege regarding the recordings but instead intended to dispute them.

“Ja, Chairperson, I will say it is because I was not going to invoke my right to self-incrimination. I was going to dispute the recordings.”

Mr Matlala did not deal with paragraph 2.4 of the notice (relations with EMPD, blue lights, peace officer cards) because he is asserting privilege against self-incrimination as he is mentioned as a suspect, family member interviewed, and others are charged.

“Ja, there is a reason. I was supposed to also claim my privilege of self-incrimination because there are people who are already charged and I am also being mentioned as a suspect, and even my family member has been interviewed.”

Mr Matlala had involvement with former mayor Tania Campbell in the State of the City Address.

“If you can go back, Commissioner, I have mentioned about my involvement with the former mayor, Tania Campbell, in the State of the City Address.”

Mr Matlala's company CATVIP previously provided security services to the late Jotham Msibi, and their relationship was solely that of rendering security services.

“I place on record that one of my companies, CATVIP, previously provided security services to the late Jotham Msibi. My relationship with him was that of rendering security services.”

Mr Matlala had a commercial transaction with Mr Steven Motsumi wherein Motsumi's company lent one of Matlala's companies (Medicare) R5 million on the basis of a written agreement at the end of 2024.

“I can confirm that I know Mr Motsumi and that I have done a commercial transaction with him wherein his company had lent me in advance one of my companies an amount of R 5 million.”

Mr Matlala accepted help from an unknown person claiming to be from the Minister's office after a raid on his home because he was frustrated and did not suspect anything initially.

“What he said to me is he is from the office of the Minister. And then by that time, out of frustration, I did not even think that far that how did he end up.”

Brown Mogotsi met Mr Matlala at Sheraton Hotel and Houghton Hotel, pretended to call the Minister, and tried to connect him to open a harassment case at Protea North police station but the case was never registered.

“I met him in Sheraton Hotel next to the Union buildings... I also met him in the other hotel in Johannesburg. I met him twice in the hotel in Johannesburg, the Houghton Hotel. ... He actually tried, because he connected me with some... Protea North. But that case was never registered.”

Mr Matlala had an oral loan agreement with Mr Karim for 50 million rand without a written agreement or security.

“I did not have to persuade him. I just showed him my contract and my SLA, and then I just maybe discussed how much the contract is worth and how much he can make out of it.”

Mr Matlala was paying Mr Karim 10 percent of what SAPS was paying him under the contract as part of the loan repayment.

“I was paying him 10 per cent of what SAPS was paying me.”

The loan from Mr Karim to Mr Matlala remains outstanding and unpaid.

“Have you paid off this loan? No.”

Mr Matlala met Mr Karim around 2020 through visits to Mr Msibi's farm and discussions in the security industry.

“he also used to come and visit Mr Msibi at this farm and then because he will see me there now and then, we ended up being close.”

There was a loan of 50 million with terms including Mr Karim receiving 10% of the contract value; the loan has not been fully repaid, was repayable over a period, and was based on an oral agreement.

“there was a loan for 50 million, that one of the terms for this loan was that Mr Karim would receive 10 per cent of the value of the contract and that the loan has not been extinguished in its entirety, that it was repayable over a certain period, the detail of which he cannot recall, and that it was an oral agreement”

Mr Matlala's accounts have been frozen so he cannot obtain bank statements directly.

“my accounts has been frozen, so I do not have any direct or – I cannot even send someone to get those bank statements for me because those accounts are not active any more”

Members of SAPS Supply Chain Management colluded with Mr Matlala's company in relation to the conclusion of the contract and purchase orders.

“some members of SAPS in Supply Chain were colluding with Mr Matlala's company and as a result, this contract was concluded. They were also colluding in relation to the issue of, I think it is in charge 3, of the orders, of the purchase orders”

Advocate Baloyi SC asserted that section 38(1)(e) of the PFMA relates to SAPS's own tax compliance rather than the tax compliance of service providers or Mr Matlala's company, raising suspicion about the motive behind IDAC's charges against the National Commissioner.

“So it is charges like that, a count like that, that reference to section 38 as one of the charges against him that feeds the suspicion that I have about the motive of putting these charges and me saying that lawyers could never have missed that that section 38(1)(e) has nothing to do with his involvement with the tax compliance of Mr Matlala's company. It has to do with SAPS' own tax compliance.”

Mr Matlala attempted to challenge the termination of the Medicare 24 contract in court or engaged in discussions with SAPS members challenging what he termed an unlawful termination.

“Mr Matlala attempted to go to court or there was discussion between him and other members of SAPS to challenge what he termed the unlawful termination of the contract.”

SAPS concluded an unlawful contract with Mr Matlala, leaving the ongoing prosecution on a questionable legal basis.

“SAPS seems to have concluded an unlawful contract with Mr Matlala, but the prosecution for that sits on a highly questionable legal basis.”

An internal audit report flagged red flags and potential fronting regarding the bid of Medicare 24 Tshwane and noted companies registered to Mr Matlala, Mr Van Wyk, and 12 companies registered to Mr James George Murray.

“At 3838, it then makes certain observations regarding red flags and/or evidence of fronting in the bid of Medicare 24 Tshwane. Sets out the basis for concluding there were red flags. Then addresses at 3839 the various companies registered to Mr Matlala. At 3840, registered to Mr Van Wyk, as well as other 12 companies registered to Mr James George Murray.”

ADV Johnson confirms that IDAC informs prosecution teams collegially when witnesses are arrested in other matters but was unaware of any internal investigation into Mr Adams' arrest.

“We inform that prosecution team, colleague to colleague ... if you take ... when Mr Matlala was arrested in Johannesburg on other matters ... I just would like you to know IDAC is only vested with this matter into Mr Matlala ... and we are not aware of what you are doing, but if you need anything, ours is purely a corruption matter and vice versa.”

Sergeant Nkosi was taken from his detention cell by prison official Mr Matlala and questioned by Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) officials about his relationship with Vusimuzi Cat Matlala and threatened with corruption charges for possessing Matlala's FNB card.

“I was called out from my detention cell by the senior prison official known to me as Mr Matlala ... who informed me that there were investigators from Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, commonly known as IDAC, who wanted to interview me. ... They started to question me about the relationship between myself and Vusimuzi Cat Matlala and threatened to charge me with corruption for once being in possession of Vusimuzi Cat Matlala's FNB card.”

On the afternoon of 13 July 2026, IDAC staff investigators visited Fannie Nkosi to implicate General Masemola and Lieutenant General Khumalo by claiming a relationship between them and Mr Matlala.

“members of the IDAC staff investigators visited Mr Fannie Nkosi to get him ... to implicate General Masemola and Lieutenant General Khumalo by claiming that there is a relationship between the two and Mr Matlala.”

The plea deal that IDAC had concluded with Mr Matlala was rejected by the court on the morning of 13 July 2026, leading to the collapse of the entire plea agreement.

“the section 205, no, 105 plea deal that IDAC had concluded with Mr Matlala was firstly rejected by the court prior to that and the court counter offered a sentence which Mr Matlala on the morning of the 13th of July on record, rejected that, leading to the collapse of the entire plea agreement.”

The affidavit suggests unlawful awarding of a tender, flouting or manipulation of procurement processes, and questionable ties between SAPS members and Mr Matlala, who assisted and favoured him and his company.

“the affidavit suggests an unlawful awarding of a tender. It suggests flouting or manipulation of procurement processes at 4. It suggests questionable ties between members of SAPS and Mr Matlala, which members then assisted and favoured him and his company”

General Masemola was served with a charge sheet dated 6 March 2026 related to the case involving Mr Matlala.

“chargesheet is dated 6-03-2026 at the bottom... summons was duly served and explained to General Masemola on Wednesday the 25th of March 2026”

Sergeant Nkosi is not an accused in the matter Mr Matlala is charged with by IDA Con, but General Masemola has been added as an accused.

“it is late in the day and perhaps I speak under correction, Sergeant Nkosi is not an accused in the matter that Mr Matlala is charged by IDA Con, on which General Masemola has been added as an accused”

Advocate Johnson is not aware of General Masemola's name having come up in respect of corruption on a corruption charge related to Mr Matlala and specifically the Medicare contract.

“are you aware of his name having come up in respect of corruption, on a corruption charge between, that relates to Mr Matlala and in particular the Medicare contract? No, ma'am”

IDAC was not aware of investigations or allegations made against PKTT members such as Mr Matlala and Katiso Molefe.

“IDAC is not aware of these cases that were made, be they by Mr Matlala about the ft, by Katiso Molefe, the ballistic case, or any other case that has been made against any of the PKTT members. They are not all allegations that IDAC is looking at.”

Mr Matlala's appearance was postponed to 15 July 2026 from an earlier subpoena date of 7 July 2026 following an engagement between his legal representatives and the Commission.

“Mr Matlala had been subpoenaed to appear on the 7th of July 2026 and on that date, Mr Matlala's legal representative and I presented ourselves before you and we had an engagement, the outcome of which was that Mr Matlala's appearance was postponed to the 15th of July, today”

Mr Matlala is due to commence a criminal trial on the coming Monday and has the constitutional right to attend and be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

“he is due to commence with a trial on Monday. We believe that he has got the constitutional right to attend this trial and be regarded as innocent until proven guilty”

Mr Matlala's constitutional rights override any compulsion by the Commission to give evidence prior to the conclusion of criminal proceedings.

“I respectfully submit that when you have a person that is either an accused or a suspect, I respectfully submit that your constitutional rights, with the greatest of respect, overwrite the compulsion that there would be from the Commission's side for him to give evidence”

Mr Matlala's lawyers believe that his constitutional rights cannot be taken away by the Commission during a fact-finding exercise and that evidence from the Commission side may be untruthful or unlawfully obtained.

“we so strongly believe that your constitutional rights, where the Constitution is the most important document in this country, those rights cannot be taken away from you by a Commission who has got a certain mandate and who has, to quote my learned friend, on a fact-finding exercise. And more so, I think what we have done, Chairperson, we have tried to set out to you why we believe that the constitutional rights... potentially, is either not the truth or unlawfully obtained”

Mr Matlala's legal team stated that the issue preventing earlier affidavit submission was due to a plea agreement entered into involving their client and IDAC.

“...came in late, through a different legal representative with IDAC, the gentleman that has been named here was part of that, entered into some, to a 105A plea agreement.”

The State wished to continue with the plea agreement but the other side (representing Mr Matlala) opposed continuation, signaling the criminal procedure act treats it as if no plea negotiations happened.

“he asked the State, what is your contention? The State said, oh, we wish to continue. He asked us and we said, no, we assail from the agreement. What then happens in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act is that it is as if there was never any plea negotiations happen.”

The legal team representing Mr Matlala was not involved in the plea negotiations and lacks the notes and documents related to those negotiations, thus they are not prepared to answer questions about them yet.

“we were not involved in those negotiations. We know what transpired and under what circumstances in those negotiations. ... my attorney and my self made the decision that we are not prepared to deal with any of these questions until such time as we are provided with the notes as to what transpired during these negotiations, as well as potentially any other documents that were drafted and signed ... We want to come here as officers of the court properly advising our client that these are questions that you have to answer, you are compelled to answer them. You cannot, let us say, invoke section 35 right ... we still cannot give you an answer ... because we still do not have that.”

Mr Matlala's legal team denies that he is the mastermind behind the issues before the commission and says there is a fallacy in that implication.

“The fact of the matter is that my client has been made out to be this mastermind by everybody and we respectfully, from our interaction, say that there is a fallacy in that.”

There are issues that Mr Matlala can deal with before the Commission despite the application saying the Commission process must be postponed pending finalization of the criminal process.

“the applications says the entire Commission process must be postponed pending finalization of the criminal process ... you have responded and said, no , no , no , there are. So there are issues that he can deal with before this Commission.”

The legal team needs to understand who is involved in the plea negotiations and what was agreed before they can allow Mr Matlala to deal with issues related to 'General X' as a suspect.

“for me to deal with whether he is a suspect or not in respect of anything to do with General X, I need to know what was discussed during the plea negotiations...”

There is a penalty of perjury for making untruthful statements, and potential previous inconsistent statements can be raised against Mr Matlala during the Commission hearing.

“there is also the penalty of perjury and of course, there is a previous inconsistent statement that can be raised at any stage.”

Mr Matlala cannot currently respond properly to questions because he has not had access to the negotiations and documents related to the plea deal approved by the court.

“you want access to the negotiations and the documents ... and you say because you have not had access to that, you are unable to get Mr Matlala to respond to the notice that he has been given”

Mr Matlala is entitled to say he does not know something if he does not know, and should respond truthfully to specific questions asked for the statement he is to submit.

“he is entitled to say, I do not know anything about this ... and the assumption that we must make is he is going to be truthful in his responses”

Mr Matlala is invoking the privilege against self-incrimination and refuses to answer questions to avoid incriminating himself as he has a trial coming up.

“Mr Matlala has the privilege to claim self-incrimination, I will not answer this question because it will incriminate me, I have a trial coming up.”

Mr Matlala has been asked questions within his personal knowledge and can choose to answer or say he knows nothing.

“he has been asked questions that are within, presumably within his personal knowledge and he can give you instructions about those... he can say I know nothing and he will come and tell us that.”

The refusal to answer questions is presented as needing explanation beyond mere self-incrimination claim, which has not been provided.

“You have not said or explained why Mr Matlala cannot submit his statement or answer the questions...”

Mr Matlala refuses to submit a statement to the Commission, and the reasons for this refusal have not been communicated.

“what you should be saying to us is Mr Matlala refuses to submit a statement to the Commission because of A, B, C, D, then we deal with it on that basis.”

The Commission is asking if anyone has tried to influence or intimidate Mr Matlala, which is relevant to its work.

“there is a specific question that says, has any person tried to influence you, intimidate you, etcetera. Now, you cannot say to me that that is not relevant to the Commission's work.”

If Mr Matlala answers yes to being intimidated or influenced, the Commission can follow up for details when he presents evidence.

“If he says yes, someone has tried to intimidate me, the Commission may well follow up when he presents evidence and say, give us the detail of that intimidation...”

Mr Matlala's counsel insists that advising a client not to answer questions to avoid self-incrimination is their ethical obligation, and they must ensure the affidavit they submit is correct.

“I advise my client, that is my duty... I do not know a single attorney or advocate that will allow their client to depose to an affidavit if they are not satisfied that what is in that affidavit is correct...”

Mr Matlala's counsel wants him to assist the Commission but only when he is satisfied with the correctness of the materials and without fear of perjury accusations due to inconsistent statements.

“I want my client to come and assist the Commission, but I want him at the end of the day to do so free of anybody coming and saying you are committing perjury because you have got something to the contrary...”

Mr Matlala cannot depose a statement or testify until the IDAC material is received and considered by his legal team.

“until you have received the IDAC material that led to the now collapsed plea deal, Mr Matlala will not be in a position to file a statement to the Commission, and Mr Matlala is not in a position to testify before the Commission”

ADV VANDENHEEVER confirms the position that until IDAC material is received and considered, Mr Matlala will not file a statement or testify.

“...is the position that until you have received and considered, as his Counsel, or his legal team, until you have received and considered the IDAC material, Mr Matlala will not file a statement and he will not testify.”

ADV VANDENHEEVER states he is protecting his client's rights by adhering to the decision not to file or testify before receiving IDAC material.

“Part of what I am doing here is to protect my client's rights, I stand by that.”

Mr Matlala's legal representatives did not indicate any changes in facts that would make it impossible to comply with the undertaking made on 7 July, indicating the undertaking should still hold.

“Mr Matlala's legal representatives were informed by certain facts to conclude that they are in a position to make certain undertakings on his behalf. They do not come here and say, those facts have changed. They do not come here and say, since the undertaking was made, new facts have come to light that make it impossible for us to comply.”

An undertaking was made on 7 July involving filing by 8 July and appearing on 15 July, which should be respected by witnesses to avoid wasting the Commission's time.

“an undertaking was made . So if those facts were not relevant prior to the 7th, and the very facts, notwithstanding the very facts they were able to make specific undertakings, which included filing by the 8th of July and appearing on the 15th”

The reserved right to supplement a filing after a deadline was a procedural accommodation to deal with tight timelines and missed deadlines.

“that proviso was discussed amongst ourselves because of the tight timeline they then had to file by, having missed previous deadlines. The only way to cure any potential prejudice to Mr Matlala was to agree and place on record that he reserves the right to supplement.”

Mr Matlala's constitutional rights as posited by Ms Vanden Heever are irrelevant to the Commission's enquiry as those rights existed on 7 July when the undertaking was made and do not advance the issue further.

“what the legal position is regarding Mr Matlala's constitutional rights, as posited by my learned friend, is irrelevant for our purposes. She may very well be correct, she may very well be wrong, but it does not advance the issue any further. Those rights existed on the 7th when she made the undertaking, unless she suggests that they have since or very recently been earned.”

The Commission is concerned that the approach by Mr Matlala's representatives is unappreciative of the operational challenges the Commission faces, particularly the impact on scheduling and limited time remaining.

“I am concerned about the approach being adopted by Mr Matlala's representatives and I do not think it is particularly appreciative of the challenges that the Commission faces. ... This Commission has got a limited time spent left to it.”

The Commission's interest is confined to the issues raised in the Rule 3 notice and subsequent Regulation 10.6 notice served on Mr Matlala, not any aborted or stillborn plea agreement with IDAC.

“the aborted or stillborn plea agreement with IDAC, at the risk of stating the obvious, that has got absolutely nothing to do with this Commission. What this Commission is interested in is its terms of reference. It is interested in the issues that were raised in the rule 3 notice that was served on Mr Matlala, as well as the subsequent regulation 10.6 notice.”

Not everything Mr Matlala could say is covered by section 35 constitutional protection, as accepted by Ms Vanden Heever.

“And as I put it to Ms Vanden Heever, it cannot be that everything he could ever say is covered by section 35. Or bears relevance to the section 35 protection. It can never be, and Ms Vanden Heever accepted that.”

Facts should not change according to what happened under a plea deal and the Commission should not be hamstrung by any plea deals Mr Matlala may conclude in criminal trials.

“And facts are facts, and they should not change in accordance with whatever it was that went on under the plea deal. But as Commissioner Baloyi said, that is null and void anyway. In any event. And once again, it depends on whether I understood her correctly, it gets worse, because now it sounds like the Commission shall be hamstrung by any plea deal that Mr Matlala may choose in any criminal trial, whether ongoing or in the future, to conclude. So effectively, if Mr Matlala were to tomorrow face five charges in five different criminal trials, and he considers whether or not to conclude a plea deal in any one of them, then this Commission is hamstrung, unless I completely misunderstood Ms Vanden Heever.”

Mr Matlala has two legal defenses in the Commission: section 35 defense and protection under section 8(2) of the Commission's Act preventing self-incrimination in criminal cases.

“He has two defences in this Commission, the section 35 defence, or buttressed, in fact, by section 8 (2) of the Commission's Act, that anything he says that would incriminate him cannot be used against him in any criminal case.”

Mr Matlala was subpoenaed to appear to give testimony on 7th July 2026 but due to delays, an extension was granted and the new date for his testimony is 15th July 2026.

“Mr Matlala was served with a subpoena to appear to give his testimony today on the 7th ... an extension was requested, which was granted ... The date we have in mind is the 15th of July”

It was agreed that Mr Matlala's statement would be submitted on 8th July 2026, though there are some documents still awaited.

“the parties are now agreed that Mr Matlala's statement will be submitted tomorrow, the 8th of July ... with the reservation of the client's rights pertaining to certain documents that we are still awaiting”

Mr Matlala was served with a subpoena to appear and give testimony on 7 July but an extension was requested and granted due to difficulties, postponing the testimony to 15 July.

“Mr Matlala was served with a subpoena to appear to give his testimony today on the 7th...an extension was requested, which was granted...The date we have in mind is the 15th of July”

Mr Matlala's statement will be submitted by 8 July 2026 despite some documents still awaited, with the potential to supplement the statement later.

“Mr Matlala's statement will be submitted tomorrow, the 8th of July...the parties are now agreed...with the reservation of the client's rights pertaining to certain documents that we are still awaiting...we might then supplement if it is not timeously done”

Mr Van Wyk owns Medicare 24 Holdings, distinct from Medicare 24 Tshwane district owned by Mr Matlala; Mr Van Wyk is also a director and key player at the security company Anubis Protection Services.

“The first company is Medicare 24 Holdings. That is Mr Van Wyk's company... Then there is a company called Anubis Protection Services. That is a security company of which Mr Van Wyk is a director and we understand him to be the key player of that company.”

WhatsApp chats included in evidence bundles involve communications between Mr Matlala and Mr Van Wyk, and separately between Mr Van Wyk and Mr Julius Mkhwanazi of the EMPD.

“The first is the chats extracted from Mr Matlala's phone, the chats between Mr Matlala and Mr Van Wyk... The second set of chats which run from page 59 in Volume 2 of the Evidence Bundle. Those are the chats between Mr Van Wyk and Mr Julius Mkhwanazi of the EMPD.”

George van der Merwe set up a sting operation with the Hawks according to Mr Van Wyk.

“Mr Van Wyk said to Mr Matlala: 'So it was George that set up the sting with the Hawks.'”

Mr Van Wyk stated that the WhatsApp communication from 19 to 3 mainly relates to a photograph of Mr Themba Moyo who was shot, forwarded to Mr Matlala.

“The WhatsApp communication from 19 to 3 mainly relates to a photograph of a person ... Mr Themba Moyo who was shot”

Mr Van Wyk claims not to remember which WhatsApp group circulated the photo, explaining that as private security industry participant he is part of many such groups.

“I do not remember which one. It is for that reason I sent it on to Mr Matlala”

Mr Van Wyk claims he never sent Mr Matlala photos of any monies he won at a casino, which suggests tampering of WhatsApp messages although the photo is accurate.

“I never sent Mr Matlala photos of any monies that I won at a casino ... he is suggesting that this section of the WhatsApps is tampered even though it accurately reflects a photograph of money that he won at a casino”

Evidence includes WhatsApp chats between Mr Van Wyk and Mr Matlala discussing cash transactions and alleged involvement in cocaine dealing.

“this is evidence of Mr Matlala and Mr Van Wyk involved in the dealing in Cocaine”

Mr Matlala sent a video to Mr Van Wyk on 6 April 2025 at 10:25, which Mr Van Wyk disputes receiving, but evidence shows it was sent.

“Mr Van Wyk disputes receiving this video ... it was sent from Mr Matlala to Mr Van Wyk at 10:25 on the 6th of April”

Mr Matlala sent Mr Van Wyk messages asking for a good price relating to cocaine and followed by a voice note saying 'we will go in at 02:50'.

“Mr Matlala sent Mr Van Wyk messages saying 'Get me a good price' ... Mr Van Wyk replied with a voice note saying 'We will go in at 02:50'”

Mr Van Wyk forwarded a message to Mr Matlala from a third party about readiness for the next day and noted important morning engagements, referring to bricks of cocaine being weighed out on video.

“Mr Van Wyk forwards to Mr Matlala ... 'Mike, are we ready to take tomorrow afternoon ... has got important engagement in the morning ...' Note refers to bricks of cocaine being weighed on video”

Chats involving Mr Matlala and a third party contain voice notes and deleted messages linked to incriminating videos.

“we found the same voice note saying we will go in at 02:50 , the identical file in these chats”

The third party and a fourth party discuss prices for illegal goods, with Mr Matlala involved in negotiations indicating price and quantities.

““ I a m w a i t i n g f o r h i m t o c o m e b a c k , b u t h e s a i d 3 5 0 k , i t i s t o o m u c h . ” The fourth party say “ 3 0 0 . ” At 09:25 , Mr Matlala says to the third party : “ O k a y, I a m a l s o g e t t i n g g o o d p r i c e , s o y o u c a n m a k e p r o f i t . ””

Mr Matlala forwarded a voice note from Mr Van Wyk stating 'we will go in at 02:50' to the third party; the voice note was originally sent by Mr Van Wyk to Mr Matlala.

“he has forwarded to the third party the voice note that Mr Van Wyk sent to him a few minutes earlier saying , we will go in at 02 : 50 .”

Mr Van Wyk claimed he never received the WhatsApp video on his cellphone despite evidence showing the video was sent to Mr Matlala by the third party and admitted by the third party to have sent it.

“... he says : “ Once again , I received the video recording from the enquiries I made to the Commission and confirmed that I never received this WhatsApp video on my cell phone . ” We do not accept that answer ... We interviewed the third party ... and the third party admits that he sent the video to Mr Matlala .”

It is technically and factually impossible for a third party to have planted the authentic video and voice note in the WhatsApp chats between Mr Van Wyk and Mr Matlala because the chats were extracted from an image of Mr Matlala's iPhone 16, and planting a message or media file would leave a trace of amendment.

“we are informed that it is not possible to plant a message or a media file into a WhatsApp chat record on an Apple iPhone 16 without leaving a trace that the file of the whole WhatsApp was amended at a later date”

The video sent by the third party was deleted for everyone from the chat at 07:49:59 and no trace of the video remains in chats between Mr Matlala and the third party or elsewhere on the phone, except in chats between Mr Van Wyk and Mr Matlala.

“The video that was sent by the third party was deleted for everyone ... what is significant is that there was no trace of the video on the chats between Mr Matlala and the third party. And indeed there is no trace of the video anywhere on the phone other than in the chats between Mr Matlala and Mr Van Wyk.”

The third party did not realize that Mr Matlala had forwarded the video to Mr Van Wyk and so the third party could not delete a video that Mr Matlala had forwarded further.

“The third party of course did not realise that Mr Matlala had forwarded the video onto Mr Van Wyk and he could not delete a video that Mr Matlala had forwarded further.”

There is no evidence that a third party tampered with the video to frame Mr Van Wyk or Mr Matlala because the video only appears in the chats between Mr Van Wyk and Mr Matlala and nowhere else on the phone.

“if one has to postulate a notional tamperer who wants to frame Mr Van Wyk and/or Mr Matlala, they would have had no access to a video to plant because the only place on the phone where the video appears is in the chats between Mr Van Wyk and Mr Matlala.”

The video is authentic, confirmed by the person who originally sent it to Mr Matlala but who subsequently deleted it, supporting the impossibility of third party tampering.

“The authenticity of the video is confirmed by the person who originally sent it to Mr Matlala, but who subsequently deleted it. So we know the video is real ... it would have been impossible for a third-party tamperer to plant that real video in the chats of Mr Van Wyk and Mr Matlala because that third party would not have had access to the video anywhere else on the phone. There is no sign of the video anywhere else on the phone.”

Work is underway on a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Medicare 24/Anubis Protection Services and EMPD, signed by Mr Mkhwanazi, and a separate MOU for Mr Matlala's entities.

“there is now work underway on an MOU and, in fact, the draft MOU ... is already signed by Mr Mkhwanazi ... and there is a separate MOU ... for Mr Matlala's entities”

This process attempts to position a private company to access blue lights and EMPD vehicles and to set up a specialised unit involving Mr Matlala's and Mr Van Wyk's entities that goes beyond healthcare.

“It is this process by which a private company is trying to put itself in a position to get blue lights and have access to vehicles which are part of the EMPD fleet ... an attempt to set up some sort of specialised unit into which Mr Matlala's entities and Mr van Wyk's entities will be able to participate which will go beyond healthcare”

Mr van Wyk clarified that the business partner mentioned in voice notes was not Mr Matlala, but another person who later passed away.

“... he was talking about a business partner in Medicare 24 Holdings and possibly in Anubis, a man who later passed away shortly ... it is not Mr Matlala.”

Mr Matlala had a criminal conviction for housebreaking sentenced to 4 years imprisonment in 2001 which meant he should have a criminal record, but it was allegedly "sorted out" illegally.

“Mr Matlala had been convicted of housebreaking and sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment in 2001 , which meant that he should have a criminal record . And that if he sorted out that problem , it was sorted out illegally”

Mr van Wyk sent a SAPS clearance certificate certifying that Mr Matlala has no criminal convictions, but this document could not lawfully have been issued since Mr Matlala had a prior housebreaking conviction that could not be expunged.

“Mr van Wyk sends through a SAPS clearance certificate certifying that Mr Matlala has no criminal convictions . Now this document , it seems to us , could not lawfully have been issued , because he did have a criminal conviction for house breaking in 2001 , and that was not a conviction that was capable of being expunged .”

Mr Van Wyk and Mr Matlala acquired some kind of law enforcement status allowing blue lights to be fitted to some of their vehicles through a process involving Commissioner Mkhwanazi, which took several months.

“Mr Matlala and Mr Van Wyk have acquired a status which has enabled them to have blue lights fitted to some of their vehicles ... a process stretching over several months ... they were able to acquire some form of appointment that would reflect their status as having certain law enforcement ... some kind of law enforcement status ... and with that blue lights for their vehicles”

By March 2025, both Mr Matlala and Mr Van Wyk appeared to be in financial difficulties related to SAPS contract payments, impacting their process for law enforcement appointment statuses.

“by March 2025 ... both Mr Matlala and Mr Van Wyk appear to be in financial difficulties and that in part has to do with problems ... securing payment on the SAPS contract”

In conversations between Mr Matlala and Mr Motsumi in early March 2025, arrangements were being made related to the company Vhazwimi Security and Protection, including preparation of letters for official purposes.

“Mr Matlala says: "Ntokozo Motsumi, 7 Viscount Road, Bedfordview, 2008, Vhazwimi Security and Protection" and asks for address and name of person in charge for letter preparation”

In the early 2000s, negotiations regarding vehicle fleet arrangements for Medicare 24 Tshwane District involved multiple parties including Mr Van Wyk, Mr Motsumi and Mr Matlala, with some confusion about which legal entity (Holdings or Tshwane (Pty) Ltd) was involved.

“Negotiations at the beginning were taking place in 2001, 2002 ... not clear whether it was for Holdings or for Tshwane 24, Tshwane (Pty) Ltd ... earlier negotiations were definitely in two parts ... certain letters were going to be signed for Mr Van Wyk and his entities ... Anubis for instance has nothing to do with Mr Matlala to the best of our knowledge ... What has happened by the time we get to 2025, we are not sure”

Payments were made from companies associated with Mr Matlala into the bank account of Commissioner Mkhwanazi, suggesting potential gratuities for favours.

“payment of R20,000.00 which comes with a reference Matlala ... payment with the same reference, Matlala ... another R30,000.00 payment into the account of Commissioner Mkhwanazi with the reference Matlala ... that R30,000.00 payment comes from a different company of Mr Matlala, Black AK Trading ... R30,000.00 payment on 10 December also with the reference, Matlala ... on the 8th of June a R20,000.00 payment is made into his account with the reference Matlala ... 18th of June there is a R20,000.00 payment with the reference, Matlala”

Witness I stayed at Mr Matlala's family property in Mamelodi for approximately two years from 2023.

“in 2023, I stayed at Mr Matlala's family property in Mamelodi for a period of approximately two years”

Captain Zungu warned Witness I the attackers may return and suggested temporary relocation and arranged a house for Witness I, which belonged to Mr Matlala.

“Captain Zungu warned that I was injured and that the group may come back and finish the job. He then suggested that I relocate temporarily and that he will arrange a house for me...property belonged to Mr Matlala”

Witness I did not meet or communicate directly with Mr Matlala during his stay at the property, only via Captain Zungu and Brigadier Mokoena later.

“During my stay, I did not meet or talk to Mr Matlala...I have had no direct communication with Mr Matlala until I met him with Captain Zungu and Brigadier Mokoena”

Witness I received warnings that senior members were unhappy with his testimony and that there was a plan to disclose his stay at Mr Matlala's house to discredit him.

“After my testimony, I received a number of calls warning me that the seniors are not happy with my testimony...there is a plan to disclose my stay at Mr Matlala's house as a way of discrediting me...I considered it a threat”

Witness I received a call or was informed by Captain Zungu that individuals wanted a meeting with him, and Mr Matlala did not play a direct role but the call came from Captain Zungu.

“you received a call, or at least you were informed by Captain Zungu that individuals would like to have a meeting with you. Mr Matlala did not play a direct role, instead you were called by Captain Zungu.”

The witness denies having any direct contact or relationship with Mr Matlala and states that Captain Zungu was the one who informed him about the meeting facilitated by Mr Matlala.

“No I would say it is a lie because I never spoke with Mr Matlala, I only spoke with Captain Zungu for the day, even my reason going there.”

Captain Zungu told the witness that the meeting was facilitated or arranged by Mr Matlala, which the witness accepted in his statement.

“Yes ... it is in relation to me being a witness on General Khan's matter, it entails General Khan ... Yes.”

The witness was arranged by Captain Zungu to live in Matlala's family house for about two years.

“Yes.”

Mr Carrim sought to blame Mr Mogotsi for what was conveyed to Mr Matlala in WhatsApp communications, accusing Mr Mogotsi of blaming him for everything.

“Mr Carrim sought to blame Mr Mogotsi for what he was conveying to Mr Matlala... Mr Mogotsi conveyed his concern that Mr Carrim had been blaming him for everything.”

Mr Mogotsi repeatedly called Mr Chaskalson on the night of 9 March seeking protection from being falsely blamed and trying to provide evidence against Mr Carrim including about the Medicare4 contract.

“Mr Mogotsi then called three more times that night. Mr Chaskalson says... that Mr Mogotsi conveyed his concern that Mr Carrim had been blaming him for everything... Mr Mogotsi offered evidence against Mr Carrim, as well as further evidence relating to the Medicare4 contract that was also a subject of debate with Mr Carrim.”

Mr Mogotsi repeatedly refuses to incriminate himself regarding a salary record and other confidential documents he sent to Mr Matlala.

“I am not going to incriminate myself, Chair.”

Mr Mogotsi confirms that the screenshot he sent to Mr Matlala shows the business that used to reside at the property purchased by Crime Intelligence.

“That is correct.”

Mr Mogotsi refuses to incriminate himself repeatedly in response to questions about his conduct regarding sharing screenshots and information with Mr Matlala.

“Let me not incriminate myself, Chair”

Mr Mogotsi shared screenshots purportedly showing properties purchased with state money by Crime Intelligence and details of someone illicitly appointed by Crime Intelligence with Mr Matlala.

“I have shared with him a whole range of properties illegally bought by Crime Intelligence and details of someone illegally appointed by Crime Intelligence”

Mr Mogotsi says his co-handler, Brigadier Duma, was aware of his investigation into Mr Matlala and the related document sharing, contrary to claims that the co-handler was unaware.

“Brigadier Duma, who was senior to this co-handler, is the one who knew what I was doing. Even the notice for investigation went to Duma”

Mr Mogotsi admits his first meeting with Mr Matlala was on December 7, 2024, a day after the raid on Mr Matlala's house on December 6, 2024.

“your first meeting with Mr Matlala was on 7 December 2024 ... The raid was on the 6th of December”

Mr Mogotsi met with Cat on 7th December, a day after a raid on Mr Matlala.

“I met Cat on the 7th of December.”

Mr Mogotsi activated his handler, initially named Mabizela but later called Mabuza, to arrange for Mr Matlala to open a criminal case at SAPS Soweto on 7th December.

“you met him on the 7th and on the same day, we see in paragraph 33, that you activate your handler, who you say is Mabizela, but now you say is Mabuza, to arrange for Matlala to open a criminal case at SAPS in Soweto.”

Mr Mogotsi acknowledged his co-handler was unaware at the time that Mr Matlala was under investigation.

“Your co-handler also said that at that stage he was unaware that you were investigating Mr Matlala.”

It is poor intelligence practice to put a target in contact with the supervisor of their investigation.

“He was very clear that it is very poor intelligence practice to put Mr Matlala, who was a target, in contact with the supervisor of the investigation into Mr Matlala.”

Mr Mogotsi gave Mr Matlala the name and ID number of his co-handler to enable purchasing a plane ticket, despite risks.

“you also gave him his ID number ... when you wanted Mr Matlala to pay for your co-handler’s ticket”

Mr Mogotsi explained that purchasing a plane ticket requires an identity document, necessitating Mr Matlala having his co-handler's name and ID number.

“when you purchase a plane ticket, there is nothing else you can use except an identity document. And Mr Matlala could not prophesy that this man is who ... He did not know him.”

Mr Mogotsi acknowledged that Mr Matlala was not an actual target of the investigation, but someone hoped to work with against the real target General Khumalo.

“He was not a target of your investigation at all. In fact, he was someone who you hoped to work with against the real target, who was General Khumalo.”

Mr Mogotsi admits he attempted to get members of the PKTT, or who he thought were members, arrested for a raid at Mr Matlala's house, but denies opening the cases himself and says the raid made the members targets.

“I thought so. I cannot hear the question. ... I did not open the case for them. I did not do it. ... To help someone open a case is not to target any person. He became the target.”

Mr Mogotsi confirms attempts to sow division between General Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi, to have members of the PKT arrested for the raid on Mr Matlala, to involve IPID in an arrest arising from the raid, and an attempt to persuade the Minister that General Sibiya and Discipline General Khumalo are involved in a Constitutional Court judgment matter (Makala case).

“So , we have talked about your attempt to sow division between General Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi , your attempt to have members of the PKT arrested for the raid on Mr Matlala , your attempt to get IPID involved in an arrest arising out of the raid on Mr Matlala 's house . ... Your fourth , the fourth instance is your attempt to persuade the Minister that he or General Sibiya and discipline General Khumalo arising out the Constitutional Court judgment in the Makala case .”

Mr Mogotsi admits to sending a Signal message to Mr Matlala on 30 January which involved coordination about General Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi matters with Deputy National Commissioner Sibiya and Chief of Staff Nkabinde, indicating targeting of General Khumalo.

“Yes , this is what was also dealt with previously . ... Also meeting with the DNC and COS today , in other words , with Deputy National Commissioner Sibiya and Chief of Staff Nkabinde today in Durban for finalization of Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi 's matters . ... That looks like a sixth instance of your targeting General Khumalo .”

Mr Mogotsi refuses to incriminate himself in relation to the investigation of Mr Matlala.

“No , I am not going to incriminate myself .”

Mr Mogotsi confirms knowing Mr Matlala since at least the North West tender case when his foundation, funded by Mr Carrim, brought a matter to stop a tender awarded to someone else.

“Ja , we also dealt about it last time . ... Yes , that was September 2023 , August , September 2023 .”

Mr Mogotsi confirms he publicly stated on TV that Mr Matlala assisted him in relation to an interdict application in September 2023.

“What I said on TV , that is correct .”

Mr Mogotsi was aware in March or April 2025 about the need to investigate a SAPS tender awarded to Mr Matlala through a company Medicare 24 with links to former Minister Bheki Cele.

“You found out about the possible need to investigate his tender with SAPS according to your statement in March , April 2024 . ... That is the statement . ... 2025 . ... So you found out about the need to investigate the tender in March , April 2025 .”

Mr Mogotsi refused to say whether he could have arranged a meeting between Mr Carrim and Mr Matlala, fearing self-incrimination.

“By saying yes, I could have approached him directly or I could have called him, is to incriminate myself”

Mr Mogotsi says he did not want to meet Mr Matlala or arrange a meeting and had no such intention when asked two years ago by Mr Carrim.

“He is asking me two years back if I wanted. I did not want. He is asking me if I wanted, I could have made them meet and so on. So, I did not want. I had no intention”

Mr Mogotsi says the delay in reaching out to Mr Matlala from March-April to December 2024 was due to waiting for the new administration after the 29 May 2024 elections and the announcement of the new cabinet in June.

“we had to wait for the new administration ... when the ANC parliamentary list came out ... former Minister Bheki Cele did not make it ... new cabinet was announced in June”

After a failed attempt to open a case, Mr Matlala reached out to Mr Mogotsi to open it.

“It is a known fact that after he was not able to open the case, that is when he reached out to me, that is when he wanted to open the case.”

Mr Mogotsi admits meeting Mr Matlala when he reached out to him, not the other way around.

“No, no, I am saying that is when we met. Let me put it that way, that is when we met.”

There is substantial evidence that Mr Matlala arranged through Sergeant Nkosi for impalas to be delivered to General Sibiya's home on 8 January.

“We have seen evidence that Mr Matlala arranged through Sergeant Nkosi for impalas to be delivered to the home of General Sibiya. Now, if you go to page 86 of the annexure bundle, BM 7.45, this is when you are in Cape Town for January the 8th.”

Mr Mogotsi confirms the WhatsApp message from Mr Matlala on 8 January requesting assistance for guests with impala meat.

“And you WhatsApp Mr Matlala on the 8th of January at 20:57 saying: 'Please assist with something for the guests.'”

Mr Mogotsi acknowledges the WhatsApp exchange included a follow-up message referencing 'Impala' and laughing emojis later.

“And he does not get back to you, and two hours later you say: 'Impala?' And then there are some laughing emojis straight after that on the next page.”

Mr Mogotsi claims this is the first time he has heard of impalas being delivered to General Sibiya by Mr Matlala and denies watching the Commission evidence.

“Yes, this I hear for the first time. As you say, people came here and gave evidence before the Commission, Chairperson, ever since I left the Commission last time, I do not watch the Commission. I, it is, ja, I do not watch the Commission at all... The impala, this one, it was the meat, impala meat, which I thought we will have.”

Mr Mogotsi states he did not know of any place in Cape Town to get impala meat and thought it was already in the fridge, not the live animal.

“No, but I thought he had in the fridge. It was ready. Not the animal. The animal is now spoken by SC and Nkosi, and that I was not part of. And you can see I was laughing. It is the meat that we thought we were going to eat there.”

Mr Mogotsi denies staying in Mr Matlala's house in Cape Town.

“No.”

Mr Mogotsi says Mr Matlala was staying in Johannesburg and might be coming to Cape Town with some meat.

“Also heard Mr Matlala maybe coming here. He will be able to, he said he have some meat.”

Mr Mogotsi denies Mr Matlala was orchestrating delivery of impala meat from Johannesburg to Cape Town and explains they just needed something for guests.

“No, no, no, no, not, I do not get when you say he was going to orchestrate. What I know is we needed something for the guests, which he was going to do from Johannesburg and then the impala, the meat, the impala meat.”

Mr Mogotsi explains impala meat was wild meat and not necessarily impala meat strictly.

“He got wild meat. It is not only impala. That time he was referring to wild meat.”

Mr Mogotsi says Mr Matlala did not tell them where he was arranging delivery for impala meat in Cape Town.

“I do not know, he did not tell us, because...”

Mr Mogotsi says the meat was either in the fridge or elsewhere in Mr Matlala's control and he would instruct his workers to deliver it.

“If he has the meat, either in the fridge or elsewhere, he could speak to one of his workers to say, take 5 kg, drop for these people where they were.”

Mr Mogotsi sent an Impala emoji to Mr Matlala to show that he could see Mr Matlala was not willing to respond.

“I just sent him to show that I can see he was not willing to respond.”

Mr Mogotsi stated that the matter involving Mr Matlala has been dismissed.

“The matter has been dismissed.”

Mr Mogotsi denies having asked Mr Matlala to fund the Minister and denies that anyone funded Minister Senzo.

“I did not ask him. No one ever funded Minister Senzo, that I know, nobody.”

Mr Matlala volunteered to fund the Minister without being asked by Mr Mogotsi.

“You did not ask, so he volunteered to fund the Minister.”

There is an established relationship between Sergeant Nkosian and figures like Matlala.

“what we have established within the evidence of this Commission is the relationship at the very least between Nkosian and figures like Matlala.”

The witness confirms he did not know Mr Matlala as a criminal but only as a businessman and was surprised when informed by Mr Lekukela Mpho of a kidnapping where a child and mother were taken; Mr Lekukela was with his friend Mr Abby Lekale.

“I confirm that I did not know Mr Matlala as a criminal. I just know him as a business man. I was surprise when I received a call from Mr Lekukela Mpho ... he was with his friend, Mr Abby Lekale, whom they told me that there was a kidnapping that occurred where a child was taken and his mother.”

The witness interviewed victim Mr Abby who suspects Mr Matlala but does not want to make a formal statement; the witness informed Lieutenant General Sibiya, who was in Cape Town but arranged a team led by Brigadier Ramangwa to investigate the kidnapping; the operation was at Atteridgeville but victims were not found; arrests are imminent.

“I have interviewed the victim Mr Abby ... he told me that he suspects Mr Matlala but he did not want to make a statement ... I immediately contacted Lieutenant General Sibiya ... he was in Cape Town but will set up a team to investigate the matter ... head of investigation was Brigadier Ramangwa ... operation was conducted at Atteridgeville but the victims were not found ... arrests are imminent.”

During a raid on 8 October 2025, police officers asked Sergeant Nkosi if Mr Matlala's Luxor card was in his possession; he explained it was not and wrote a statement accordingly.

“during your raid, they asked me whether if Mr Matlala's Luxor card was in my possession and then I explained to them that it was not. So, I felt like I must write the statement with that effect”

Sergeant Nkosi found a Luxor card and later informed Mr Matlala about its whereabouts, linking the urgency of needing the card to meetings with Deputy President Mashatile and General Sibiya.

“he needs the card urgent as he was going to meet Deputy President Mashatile and then meet General Sibiya after that. I then took pictures of the said card. It was black in colour, then sent to his phone.”

Sergeant Nkosi clarifies that he called Mr Matlala after finding the card, not the other way around as earlier stated, and that the call about the card was urgent because Mr Matlala wanted to use it in his meetings with the Deputy President and General Sibiya.

“I might have made a mistake when I say he called me. I called him when I found the card. ... The call that he made, it was a call now after I informed him that I found the card. So now the reason that he called me on this particular day is because he wanted to use that card. And then he further stated that he was going to meet with General Sibiya and Paul Mashatile.”

Sergeant Nkosi confirms that it was Mr Matlala who said the words about needing the card urgently for meetings with Deputy President Mashatile and General Sibiya.

“That is correct. ... That is his words.”

Sergeant Nkosi found a driver's license in the jetski that had been left by Mr Matlala.

“On my arrival, that is at Mr Matlala's farm, I was found by him at the gate. Then I took the jetski away. But later on that week, he phoned me telling me he is looking for the card and driver's license that he left in the dash of the jetski.”

Sergeant Nkosi initially stated he found the card on his way back from collecting the jet ski from Mr Matlala's farm, but later changed his version to saying he found it at Hartebeespoort Dam, leading to contradictory evidence about the discovery circumstances of the card.

“I found it on my way back to collect the jet ski ... from Mr Matlala's farm ... you immediately changed your version and then you said, actually I found it at Hartebeespoort Dam ... there are a whole range of issues on which you have given fundamentally contradictory evidence in relation to this card.”

There are two contradictory versions about when the card was found: either in September 2024 or in December 2024.

“did you find the card in September or did you find the card in December? ... On some occasions you have said it was when you were fetching the jet ski which would have been September ... On other occasions you have said it was on the day that you sent the pictures to Mr Matlala ... which we know to be the 23rd of December ... So there are two different versions.”

Sergeant Nkosi admits he found the card in December 2024, but previously gave versions compatible with finding it in September 2024 within a week of returning from Mr Matlala's farm.

“When you found the card was it September or December? ... December ... why then did you twice give a version that could only be consistent with having found the card in September within a week of your return from Mr Matlala's farm ... that is repeated ...”

Sergeant Nkosi acknowledges that he called Mr Matlala first to inform him that he had found the card and that Mr Matlala only called him to follow up afterward.

“I phoned him first when I found the card. Then from there he made the follow ups ... That is correct.”

Sergeant Nkosi disputes that Mr Matlala called him first about the card as stated in his handwritten statement, claiming that it was a follow-up call after Nkosi informed Mr Matlala of finding the card.

“In your handwritten statement you say Mr Matlala phoned me ... But I phoned him first to let him know that I found the card ... That is a second error in this handwritten statement ...”

Sergeant Nkosi affirmatively agreed that a WhatsApp message showed he sent a picture of a card on 23 December 2024 following an urgent call from Mr Matlala, who needed the card urgently to see Deputy President Mashatile and General Sibiya.

“Well, the WhatsApp’s show that you sent this card, a picture of the card, on the 23rd of December 2024.”

Sergeant Nkosi admitted he omitted mentioning in his typed statement to the Commission the urgent call from Mr Matlala about needing the card to meet the Deputy President and General Sibiya.

“It could be a mistake on the statement or when the statement was written that I omitted that.”

Sergeant Nkosi confirmed the handwritten statement includes that Mr Matlala told him he needed the card urgently because he was going to meet the Deputy President.

“Just the statement that Mr Matlala told you he needed the card urgently as he was going to meet the Deputy President.”

Sergeant Nkosi gave multiple versions of the story concerning the card and jet ski, including that Mr Msibi's son asked him to collect the jet ski from Mr Matlala’s farm, and that Mr Matlala requested him to look for a card and driver's license in the jet ski's dash, which he could not deliver immediately due to being busy.

“The version in the handwritten statement is that in December 2024 or January 2025, Mr Msibi's son asked you to go and fetch the jet ski from Mr Matlala's farm. You collected the jet ski from Mr Matlala's farm. Later that week, Mr Matlala asked you to look for a card and a driver's license in the dash of the jet ski. You could not take it to him because you were busy.”

Sergeant Nkosi confirmed that the pictures of the card were sent to Mr Matlala on 3 December and that Mr Matlala wanted the card urgently because he was meeting with the Deputy President and General Sibiya.

“He wanted the card urgently because he was going to meet with the Deputy President and then General Sibiya, so you took pictures of the card and sent them to him.”

Sergeant Nkosi admitted to previously withdrawing money on behalf of Mr Matlala to pay for materials to refurbish a boat and jet ski of Mr Msibi.

“You have used the card previously to withdraw money on behalf of Mr Matlala to pay for materials to refurbish his boat and the jet ski of Mr Msibi that he was using and also to buy the jet ski's service kit.”

Sergeant Nkosi confirmed the withdrawal on behalf of Mr Matlala related to refurbishing a boat and jet ski prior to 23 December 2024.

“I confirm.”

Sergeant Nkosi admitted he did not mention in his written statement two WhatsApp messages from Mr Matlala on 5 and 21 January referring to the card as 'plastic' and complaining it had been left long at Mr Msibi's place.

“There was no mention of these WhatsApp's in your written statement. There was no mention in your written statement of you…”

Mr Matlala sent WhatsApp messages on 5 and 21 January 2025 requesting return of his card, complaining it had long been left at Mr Msibi's place of abode.

“If further avert that the plastic referred to on the WhatsApps messaged dated 5 January 2025 and 21 January 2025, he was requesting I return to him his card, averred above, as it was long left at Mr Msibi's place of abode.”

Advocates suggest that the card found by Sergeant Nkosi was likely given by Mr Matlala to allow drawing cash, possibly as a bribe to General Sibiya, and that Sergeant Nkosi's contradictions aim to present an innocent explanation for possession of the card.

“My theory is that that card was given to you by Mr Matlala as a means allowing you to draw cash from Mr Matlala's accounts, in other words, essentially to pay a bribe either to you or to General Sibiya through you, and that the reason for all of these contradictions is that you are trying to work out a version that would plausibly explain your possession of the card in innocent terms.”

Sergeant Nkosi denies that Mr Matlala had any reason to pay a so-called bribe via card to him and denies having anything or means to make or push Mr Matlala to pay bribe.

“My answer to that is false again. One, Mr Matlala had no reason to pay the so-called bribe to me via card. One, to elaborate on that, I did not have anything or means to make, nor to push Mr Matlala to pay bribe on me. I was not investigating him, I did not do him any things or any favours.”

Adv Chaskalson SC claims the Impala that Mr Matlala arranged to be delivered to General Sibiya's home was done so through arrangements made through Sergeant Nkosi, who forwarded messages to General Sibiya and communicated between Mr Matlala and General Sibiya.

“But the impala that Mr Matlala arranged to be delivered to General Sibiya's home are impalas in respect of which the delivery arrangements were made through you. Mr Matlala sent you messages, you forwarded them onto General Sibiya, you had calls with General Sibiya, you came back to Mr Matlala, and that is how the delivery was done. No contact between Mr Matlala and General Sibiya, but contact between Mr Matlala and you, and you and General Sibiya. Do you recall that?”

Sergeant Nkosi recalls the described contacts between himself, Mr Matlala, and General Sibiya regarding the delivery of the Impala car.

“I recall that.”

Adv Chaskalson SC suggests a modus operandi where communication and transactions between Mr Matlala and General Sibiya are intermediated by Sergeant Nkosi to avoid direct contact.

“Now, and we saw in relation to Tshwane this modus operandi of people not wanting to be seen talking to each other or doing transactions with each other, with intermediating their communications through you. We saw that repeatedly with the CFO and General Dlamini.”

Adv Chaskalson SC suggests that if the Impala car that Mr Matlala delivered to General Sibiya was a bribe, it was delivered through arrangements made through Sergeant Nkosi.

“If we assume that the impala that Mr Matlala delivered to General Sibiya were a bribe, that was a bribe that was delivered through arrangements that were made through you, is that not correct?”

Sergeant Nkosi confirms that he had the card with him on the 23rd December 2024 and that it was not the first time he came across the card, stating the card was on the jet ski in December and he used it with Mr Matlala's permission to buy boat seats, boat cover and a service kit.

“On that particular day that I had the card with me in December, it was not the first time coming across the card. But in December, the card was on the jet ski. And I also confirmed that, even in my statement I stated that there are things that I used with that card, with the permission of Mr Matlala, to buy the boat seats, boat cover, and a service kit for the jet ski and the boat.”

Sergeant Nkosi denies that the card was with him on the 10th, 11th and 12th of December 2024 and says the card was with Mr Matlala on those dates.

“No, it was not with me. ... Yes.”

Sergeant Nkosi does not know how Mr Matlala could have used the card found in the jet ski dash to make cash withdrawals from 10 to 12 December 2024.

“I do not know.”

Adv Chaskalson SC argues it is implausible for Mr Matlala to have used the card in the jet ski dash to make withdrawals from 10 to 12 December 2024 and challenges Sergeant Nkosi to explain or prove how it could have happened.

“I put it to you that it is extremely improbable, if not impossible, for Mr Matlala to have used a card that was in the dash of the jet ski when you collected it in September, and that he was still looking for in December, to make withdrawals from 10 to 12 December? I mean, how? Give me, or show me, or give me a suggestion that suggests that this would be possible. How would it have happened?”

Sergeant Nkosi had possession of a card prior to 23 December 2024 and used it to buy a jet ski service kit before that date.

“in your statement you say, before this day you bought a service kit for the same jet ski using that card ... that was done before 23 December 2024”

Sergeant Nkosi had previously returned the card to Mr Matlala's office after using it.

“My man, I can drop it tomorrow, same place as last”