Mr Carrim

The Chairperson issued a ruling postponing the hearing of Mr Carrim's evidence to 14 August 2026, subject to conditions regarding independent medical evaluation.

“The hearing of Mr Carrim’s evidence is postponed to 14 August 2026 at 09:30 at which hearing Mr Carrim shall be required to appear and testify in person subject to paragraph 2.”

Mr. Carrim accepts there are factual inaccuracies in his case documents, which have led to shifting goalposts by the Commission.

“Mr Carrim's case, as we sit here, actually accepts those, that they are, in fact, inaccuracies, hence the shifting of goalposts.”

The factual movements related to Mr. Carrim's medical condition should not be used in isolation to draw clinical conclusions because such movements may be part of the therapy process and do not necessarily contradict treatment.

“It is not a purely factual inquiry ... the danger in analysing the facts of those movements would potentially lead you to draw an inaccurate clinical conclusion because the fact of those movements is not necessarily antithetical to the treatment he is receiving ... it might form part of the therapy process.”

Mr. Carrim had the possibility of voluntarily agreeing to an assessment, and there was no resistance to this.

“... we are talking about there having been no resistance, as I understood you, by Mr Carrim to the possibility of voluntarily agreeing to an assessment.”

Mr Carrim will never testify, even if the evidence hearing is postponed to a later date.

“Mr Carrim never, ever testifies”

The treating doctor of Mr Carrim states that his medical condition is dynamic and subject to change; the doctor proposes to update the Commission every two weeks about Mr Carrim's fitness to testify.

“the treating doctors says is that the position of my client is dynamic and it is subject to change ... the treating doctor himself proposes to account to the Commission under oath once every two weeks to update the Commission regarding the client's position and whether he can or cannot testify”

The application for postponement of Mr Carrim's evidence today is opposed by the Commission's Evidence Leaders who want a definite date for Mr Carrim's testimony rather than an indefinite postponement.

“a correct proposition. You are asking for a postponement to an indefinite date ... The Evidence Leader so oppose that ... we want him to be given a date to come and appear. So there is an opposition to your application”

The Commission's case doubts the medical evidence of Mr Carrim's treating clinician based on his presence at X place recorded on CCTV footage.

“the thesis underlying their opposition to the postponement and why they want to tied down my client to a specific date is to say the fact of these movements, the fact of these payments, the fact that he is not in the hospital all the time brings into doubt the medical diagnosis that the clinician has given him”

It is undisputed that on the relevant day Mr Carrim was at a shopping complex in Durbanville, which the Commission's Evidence Leader bases his case on.

“it is agreed that at the time, on the day, Mr Carrim was at a shopping complex in Durbanville”

The medical evidence from Mr Carrim's treating clinician about clinical diagnosis and observations is undisputed and challenged only on collateral issues by the Commission’s expert report.

“the medical evidence in front of you from Mr Carrim's treating clinician is undisputed on the clinical diagnosis and the clinical observation that Mr Carrim's treating medical professional makes. There is an expert report, and I am not even going to mention the expert's name, put up by the Commission, which generously does not actually dispute that clinical observation. What it does is it speaks to two collateral issues.”

Mr Carrim's medical doctor did not perform an Independent Medical Examination (IME); therefore, the IME cannot be used to impugn his doctor's clinical observations.

“the simple point about that IME and why then it cannot be used as a basis to impugn Mr Carrim's medical doctor's clinical observations is Mr Carrim's medical doctor never performed an IME. An IME is an entirely separate form of medical examination that is performed in a forensic context where there needs to be, understandably, a degree of separation or independence between the medical examiner and the ultimate patient.”

The Commission's expert criticizes Mr Carrim's medical practitioner for allegedly not doing an IME exercise and says the treatment cannot be an IME because there is no independence; however, the treating doctor is not providing forensic independent evaluations.

“the Commission's expert attempts to make is that the Commission's expert, as we understand it, says that the treatment Mr Carrim is receiving can never be an IME exercise because he is not, in inverted commas, independent enough of Mr Carrim. And the point I am making is that is exactly correct because the treating doctor is not performing an IME for some forensic, independent, objective, evaluative purpose like under Section 79 inquiry or under a Rule 36 type inquiry. He is the patient's, Mr Carrim's, own treating doctor.”

Any directive regarding Mr Carrim's medical examination must be preceded by the medical examination of Mr Carrim by his own treating doctors; the medical evidence from Mr Carrim's doctor is unchallenged on its clinical observations.

“that report itself emphasizes the role to be played by Mr Carrim's own treating doctors before any such directive can be given that he is subject to the medical examination of another, and you can find that at Annexure MT1, at paragraphs 18 to 19 and it is also referred to in the Evidence Leader's submissions at paragraph 47. So the very point is to say that the medical evidence of Mr Carrim's doctor is unchallenged directly.”

Mr Carrim's treating doctor's clinical views indicate Mr Carrim's inability to give evidence, which is a known but not public fact.

“Mr Carrim's treating doctor's clinical views speak to Mr Carrim's non-ability to give evidence. And I am using ability deliberately because that obfuscates what is known to us but not to the world at large.”

The Commission's case challenges the medical evidence on the basis that Mr Carrim was at a shopping complex in Durbanville, which contradicts his clinical diagnosis.

“the very attitude of the Commission through the Evidence Leaders is not to say that, oh, this is a benign piece of evidence, the CCTV footage... The entire thesis underlying their opposition to the postponement and why they want to tied down my client to a specific date is to say the fact of these movements, the fact of these payments, the fact that he is not in the hospital all the time bring into doubt the medical diagnosis that the clinician has given him.”

The medical evidence from Mr Carrim's treating clinician is undisputed on the clinical diagnosis and clinical observations made.

“the medical evidence in front of you from Mr Carrim's treating clinician is undisputed on the clinical diagnosis and the clinical observation that Mr Carrim's treating medical professional makes.”

The Commission's expert report does not dispute the clinical observation of Mr Carrim's treating doctor, but raises two collateral issues, including inappropriate suggestion that Mr Carrim's doctor should perform an Independent Medical Examination (IME).

“There is an expert report, ... put up by the Commission, which generously does not actually dispute that clinical observation. What it does is it speaks to two collateral issues. ... he talks about it being inappropriate for Mr Carrim's physician... to perform what is called an independent medical exam on Mr Carrim... that IME cannot be used as a basis to impugn Mr Carrim's medical doctor's clinical observations because Mr Carrim's medical doctor never performed an IME.”

Mr Carrim's treating doctor did not perform an IME; an IME is a forensic medical examination done independently from the patient, which is different from the treating doctor's clinical role.

“Mr Carrim's medical doctor never performed an IME. An IME is an entirely separate form of medical examination that is performed in a forensic context... a degree of separation or independence between the medical examiner and the ultimate patient.”

The Commission's expert argues that Mr Carrim's treating doctor is not independent enough to perform an IME, which leads to undermining the clinical evidence presented by that doctor.

“the Commission's expert... says that the treatment Mr Carrim is receiving can never be an IME exercise because he is not, inverted commas, independent enough of Mr Carrim... seems to undermine the clinical evidence in front of you from that doctor is to say he is not entitled to perform an IME and what he is given you is not an IME.”

The medical report highlights the central role of Mr Carrim's treating doctors before any directive can be given for a medical examination by another.

“that report itself emphasizes the role to be played by Mr Carrim's own treating doctors before any such directive can be given that he is subject to the medical examination of another...”

Agreement is reached that if the medical examination is voluntary, no adverse inference can be drawn if the person declines to participate.

“if the voluntary examination is the mechanism with the interposition of Mr Carrim's own doctor or not, then that would be fine, because that also means that no adverse inference can be drawn if he declines to not participate in that”

There were letters written to Mr Carrim's attorneys requesting him to avail himself for an independent medical assessment, but there was no known positive response; instead the Commission faced vehement opposition to the possibility of such an assessment.

“at least two letters... were written to Mr Carrim's attorneys requesting him to avail himself for an assessment by an independent doctor. Initially there was no response and was there a response the second time around? ... what we got was the vehement argument by you against that as a possibility”

There is no rebuttal evidence challenging the direct medical expert evidence concerning Mr Carrim's clinical condition presented to the Commission.

“so far as there is direct medical expert evidence in front of you is concerned, there is no rebuttal of that, it remains unchallenged”

There is consensus between Mr Carrim's treating doctor and the Commission's own expert about the voluntary or facilitated nature of Mr Carrim's independent medical assessment.

“there is consensus between Mr Carrim's treating doctor... and the Commission's own expert”

There is a threat of referral for prosecution if Mr Carrim does not appear again before the Commission, regardless of medical advice not to appear.

“there is a threat of a referral for prosecution if Mr Carrim does not appear again, whether advised or not advised to not appear based on his medical condition”

Any prosecution related to Mr Carrim's non-attendance will fail due to the absence of wilfulness, as demonstrated on the evidence.

“any prosecution will fail because there is an absence of wilfulness, and that will be demonstrated on the evidence”

If Mr Carrim does not appear again before the Commission, the Commission's Evidence Leaders will not entertain any postponement requests and will ask the Commission to make conclusions on the basis of unanswered evidence.

“the Commission's Evidence Leaders were emphatic that if Mr Carrim does not come again, they are not going to entertain this business about a postponement or no postponement, they were going to ask the Commission to make conclusions”

There are many new allegations introduced in the answering affidavit to the Commission, including an accusation of trial ambush which is contested and has innocent explanations.

“there are many new allegations... a statement made about trial ambush... made clearly for Mr Carrim and his legal team and the deponents on his behalf to answer, and then they are ambushed after the fact”

CHAIRPERSON recalls more than one letter was written to Mr Carrim's attorneys asking him to avail for an independent assessment, initially no response, then vehement opposition from ADV PREMHID.

“More than one letter was written to Mr Carrim 's attorneys requesting him to avail himself for an assessment by an independent doctor. Initially there was no response and was there a response the second time around? I am not sure, but here in open session in this Commission what we got was the vehement argument by you against that as a possibility.”

CHAIRPERSON states no assessment voluntarily received from Mr Carrim or his attorneys despite multiple requests.

“If Mr Carrim was prepared at all to subject himself to the assessment we should by now have received something from him or his attorneys saying that here I am, I am willing to subject myself to that assessment that the Commission's attorneys have asked for more than once.”

Mr Carrim's independent doctor's assessment states that interposition of another doctor would be deleterious to Mr Carrim's treatment.

“Mr Carrim's doctors say such an assessment, in fact I think the doctor uses the word interposition, so if another doctor is interposed that will be deleterious to the treatment that Mr Carrim is undergoing.”

If another doctor is to be interposed despite the treating doctor's opposition, it should be done only in consultation with the treating doctor, who must be involved in the process.

“if despite that the position is that another doctor should be interposed that should be done in, I am paraphrasing here, I have forgotten the actual wording, that should be done in consultation with me. I should be involved.”

The doctor's position is to be consulted and able to facilitate non-clinically detrimental actions to the patient regarding interposing another doctor.

“The doctor’s position is to say that I must be consulted and if I can facilitate something which is not clinically detrimental to my client’s, my patient’s current position or future position then I would have to give medical advice in that regard.”

Mr. Carrim's treating doctor opposes the unilateral interposition of another doctor in the medical treatment of Mr. Carrim, suggesting that any other doctor's interposition should be done only in consultation with the treating doctor.

“Mr Carrim's doctors say such an assessment , in fact I think the doctor uses the word interposing , so if another doctor is interposed that will be deleterious to the treatment that Mr Carrim is undergoing .”

The treating doctor's position is that unilateral or compelled interposition of another doctor without the treating doctor's consultation or facilitation is opposed, but voluntary interposition with consultation and facilitation that is not clinically detrimental would be acceptable.

“the position of the doctor is that it is not to say that none should be interposed as a blanket position . It is to say none can be interposed unilaterally or in a compelled sense that the doctor resists and then the doctor's position in respect of what then , so in other words if it is voluntary does it come through me or whatever the case might be , is expressly dealt with in that same affidavit ... The doctor's position is to say that I must be consulted and if I can facilitate something which is not clinically detrimental to my client 's , my patient 's current position or future position then I would have to give medical advice in that regard .”

A rebuttal witness, common in civil litigation to contest expert witness evidence, could have been brought in but was not, impacting the assessment of medical risks and benefits which require clinical judgment.

“a rebuttal witness could have been brought and the rebuttal witness like ordinarily happens in civil litigation where there are contesting expert witnesses”

There is no rebuttal expert medical evidence challenging the direct medical expert evidence regarding Mr Carrim's condition in the Commission, so alternative evidence sources should be viewed with caution.

“so far as there is direct medical expert evidence in front of you is concerned, there is no rebuttal of that, it remains unchallenged”

Any weight assigned to electronic evidence should be less than that assigned to direct medical evidence in assessing Mr Carrim's medical condition.

“to the extent that any weight is going to be placed on that you should place less weight on that than you should the direct medical evidence in front of you”

There is a threat of referral for prosecution if Mr Carrim does not appear again, regardless of medical advice about his condition.

“there is a threat of a referral for prosecution if Mr Carrim does not appear again, whether advised or not advised to not appear based on his medical condition”

A prosecution against Mr Carrim would fail due to absence of wilfulness, which will be demonstrated through evidence at pre- or post-prosecution stages.

“any prosecution will fail because there is an absence of wilfulness, and that will be demonstrated on the evidence”

Evidence Leaders had previously warned that if Mr Carrim did not appear again before the Commission, they would not consider postponements and would ask the Commission to make conclusions based on the unanswered pieces of evidence.

“the Commission's Evidence Leaders were emphatic that if Mr Carrim does not come again, they are not going to entertain this business about a postponement or no postponement, they were going to ask the Commission to make conclusions”

There are many new allegations introduced in Mr Carrim's answering affidavit, including a claim of a trial ambush, but there are innocent explanations for these allegations.

“there are many new allegations that are introduced in the answering affidavit of the Commission, and particularly in the correspondence, ... there is a statement made about trial ambush ... there are innocent explanations for these things”

Mr Carrim undertook to furnish the Commission with the names of auditors and financial statements of his companies but has not done so, and one entity denied auditing his companies despite being named.

“I think initially when Mr Carrim was testifying here on the 8th and 9th of March, I think, and he promised or undertook to furnish that information. In fact, I think in respect of the auditors, he furnished the name of an entity that eventually denied that it was auditing any of his companies.”

A virtual PA played a crucial role when Mr Carrim's bank account(s) were being closed by FNB, showing close involvement in his affairs.

“when Mr Carrim's bank account or bank accounts... was aware in the process of being closed by FNB, this virtual PA played a very crucial role in that process. So it seems to me that this is someone who is closely involved in Mr Carrim's affairs.”

The deponent to Mr Carrim's affidavits, who is his wife, does not know who the auditors are and says nobody else knows either.

“the deponent to Mr Carrim's affidavits says, I do not know and she says, nobody else knows.”

The wife of Mr Carrim works in a role where she screens his calls and emails, liaises with banks including regarding account closures, facilitates payments of staff, and directs matters requiring attention to the appropriate person.

“she screens my husband's calls and emails, liaises with the banks, including in relation to the closure”

The individual named in paragraph 67.3 is doing nothing other than acting in a holding pattern and does not have the institutional knowledge backwards nor strategic insight going forwards.

“the individual concerned is doing nothing other than acting in a holding pattern or in a holding capacity, but does not have the institutional knowledge going backwards and also does not have the strategic insight and knowledge going forwards”

Mr Carrim was put under some pressure to account for his business operations which appeared to be less than perfect.

“having regard to what has previously occurred where Mr Carrim was put under some pressure to account for his business operations which appeared to be less than perfect”

There was a debate between Commissioner Baloyi and Mr Carrim about how particular decisions are made, whether there are proper books of account and the regularity of what is going on inside the business from a corporate perspective.

“there was a debate between Commissioner Baloyi and Mr Carrim about how particular decisions are made or not made and are there proper books of account and what is the regularity of what is going on inside this business from a corporate perspective”

An individual working for Mr Carrim is actually his wife, who screens his calls and emails, liaises with banks, facilitates payments, and directs matters requiring attention.

“if you look at who she works for, it is not Mr Carrim himself, it is the wife ... all she does is she screens my husband's calls and emails, liaises with the banks ... facilitates payment of staff, and directs matters requiring attention to the appropriate person”

The individual named in paragraph 71, page 25, is acting in a holding capacity without institutional knowledge or strategic insight.

“the individual concerned is doing nothing other than acting in a holding pattern or in a holding capacity, but does not have the institutional knowledge going backwards and also does not have the strategic insight and knowledge going forwards”

Mr Carrim was put under pressure to account for his business operations which were less than perfect, and he described the situation as it appeared without much detail.

“having regard to what has previously occurred where Mr Carrim was put under some pressure to account for his business operations which appeared to be less than perfect, he himself could not address that in any great detail other than to say that the businesses were and are what they are”

There is an issue raised by the Chair regarding why within the institutions there is no single person who knows anything about the accountants or auditors, and why the information resides exclusively with Mr Carrim.

“how can it be that within these institutions, all of them, there is not a single person who knows something about the accountants or auditors? ... how is it that this information resides only in Mr Carrim's head?”

Mr Carrim has been required to furnish certain information repeatedly but has not done so, unlike Mr Carrim who could do what was stated in the paragraphs referred to.

“Why is it that he cannot likewise do what he has been required to do, which is to furnish the information that has been requested repeatedly?”

Paragraphs in the affidavit add color and context to why divulging certain information is not simple, and note the inherent risk throughout the proceedings regarding Mr Carrim's ability to provide instructions.

“Paragraph 53.1 which adds some colour, perhaps, as to why something that is described as a simple issue or decision or divulgence is not as simple as it is... the qualification in 66 in respect of what comes above in respect of 65... is itself further qualified regarding Mr Carrim and his ability and what the inherent risk is throughout the proceedings.”

According to affidavits, certain individuals referred to by Chair are not considered to have a greater role in running the businesses involved, and the paragraphs instructing Mr Carrim to give instructions must be considered with ability and capacity in mind.

“Chair views those two other individuals who I am not going to name as having a greater role perhaps in the running of the businesses... even if it is as simple in inverted commas for an instruction to be given by Mr Carrim to those individuals, those two paragraphs need to be borne in mind in respect of the instruction and the ability to give that instruction.”

Mr Carrim has suffered another medical incident and cannot provide instructions regarding the matter; the treating doctor has expressed frustration over the pressure Mr Carrim is under from attorneys relating to the Commission business.

“Mr Carrim has suffered another medical incident and that no instructions can be obtained by him in respect of what Chair has put to me... the clinician has expressed his frustration to Mr Carrim's attorneys because in his view, his client's position is deteriorating as a result of the pressure being put on him by his attorneys in respect of Commission and Commission business.”

The treating doctor deals with Mr Carrim's business affairs only in a facilitative role and is not directly involved in running the businesses; paragraph 53 on page 45 explains this role and the context of the doctor's intervention.

“The doctor himself never says that he gets involved in the business per se. He has a facilitative role, where it is appropriate to play a facilitative role... paragraph 53.1 on page 45 gives you the context of how the doctor enters the equation.”

Mr Premhid answered questions referencing specific paragraphs and pages of the affidavit about instructions given by Mr Carrim, explaining that the issue is not simple and involves interactions and risks inherent to Mr Carrim's position.

“I gave, is paginated page 45 paragraph 53.1, which adds some colour ... explaining why something described as a simple issue or decision or divulgence is not as simple as it is ... the instructions that I said I would undertake to give ... Contact was made ... to take instruction on the issue ... Mr Carrim has suffered another medical incident ... no instructions can be obtained by him ...”

Mr Carrim has suffered a medical incident and cannot provide instructions related to the inquiry as his doctor expressed frustration about the pressure Mr Carrim is under from his attorneys concerning the Commission business.

“I am advised that Mr Carrim has suffered another medical incident and that no instructions can be obtained by him ... The clinician has expressed his frustration to Mr Carrim's attorneys because ... his client's position is deteriorating as a result of the pressure being put on him by his attorneys in respect of Commission and Commission business.”

Mr Carrim's doctor does not specifically deal with the accounting-auditing issue that is pertinent to the Commission's information requests, and the doctor only has a facilitative role regarding Mr Carrim's business affairs, not involved in running his businesses directly.

“If I read his reports correctly, I do not recall that he deals with this aspect at all ... The doctor himself never says that he gets involved in the business per se. He has a facilitative role ... and the answer for that is paragraph 53.1 page 45.”

The doctor must make a clinical assessment before relaying any matter to Mr Carrim, not just relay a phone message or question.

“the doctor himself says that whatever matter has to go to Mr Carrim through the doctor is not just simply relaying a telephone message or relaying a question, but that the doctor himself has to make a clinical assessment at that moment in time”

The request for documents was made months ago, as far back as when Mr Carrim appeared before the Commission on 9 and 10 March 2026.

“that request was made as far back as when Mr Carrim appeared in this Commission. That was on 9 and 10 March”

The point of evidence on Mr Carrim's movements is not to try to disprove a psychiatric diagnosis.

“the point of the evidence on Mr Carrim's movements is not put up to try to disprove a psychiatric diagnosis”

The doctor himself must make a clinical assessment before relaying matters to Mr Carrim, not just relay a telephone message or question.

“the doctor himself says that whatever matter has to go to Mr Carrim through the doctor is not just simply relaying a telephone message or relaying a question, but that the doctor himself has to make a clinical assessment at that moment in time”

The request for documents made to Mr Carrim dates back to 9 and 10 March and is months old by the time of this hearing.

“that request was made as far back as when Mr Carrim appeared in this Commission. That was on 9 and 10 March ... So, this request is months old.”

There is no objection to the redaction of the record or the CCTV footage; the point of the evidence on Mr Carrim's movements is not to disprove a psychiatric diagnosis.

“On the question of the redactions ... On the question of the CCTV footage ... What I would like to make clear at the outset is that the point of the evidence on Mr Carrim's movements is not put up to try to disprove a psychiatric diagnosis.”

The point of putting up the movements is to bear directly on Mr Carrim's demonstrated ability and day-to-day functioning capacity, not to disprove a diagnosis or challenge the clinical findings of the treating doctor.

“the point of putting up the evidence on the movements is not to disprove any diagnosis, not to use it to challenge the clinical findings of a treating doctor, but it is important because what it does is it bears directly on his, Mr Carrim's demonstrated ability, his day-to-day functioning capacity”

Mr Carrim was in fact in Durbanville on the 14th of July, supported by a deponent, his wife, and evidence including presence at a shopping centre such as Woolworths and other places.

“there is admission by Mr Carrim through the deponent, his wife, that he was indeed in Durbanville and at this particular shopping centre, that he went to Woolworths and this other place”

The legal representatives of Mr Carrim and the Evidence Leaders may not, during the hearing of the postponement application, mention Mr Carrim's medical condition, the nature of the treatment, the identity and nature of health professionals attending to Mr Carrim, and the medical facility where he is admitted, as well as the names and addresses of his family members.

“The legal representatives of Mr Carrim and the Evidence Leaders may not, during the hearing of the postponement application, mention Mr Carrim's medical condition, the nature of the treatment is receiving, the identity and nature of practice the health professionals attending to Mr Carrim in respect of the medical condition and the medical facility where he is admitted ... may not ... mention the names and residential and business addresses of Mr Carrim's family members”

The Evidence Leaders are not opposing the postponement application itself but oppose granting a postponement without requiring an independent medical examination, based on the history of postponements where the length of Mr Carrim's incapacity has grown each time.

“the heart of our opposition as Evidence Leaders is that the Commission should not grant a postponement without requiring an independent medical examination ... we have had a history of postponements where the length of time that we are told that Mr Carrim will be incapacitated has varied and grown each time”

Mr Carrim's attorneys appear to believe that a postponement is always available upon request, as evidenced by repeated attempts to gain postponements.

“Mr Carrim's attorneys seem to believe that a postponement is available for the asking”

The purpose of putting up the movements evidence is not to challenge the clinical findings of Mr Carrim's treating doctor but to bear on his demonstrated ability and day-to-day functioning.

“the point of putting up the evidence on the movements is not to disprove any diagnosis, not to use it to challenge the clinical findings of a treating doctor, but it is important because what it does is it bears directly on his, Mr Carrim's demonstrated ability, his day-to-day functioning capacity.”

The Evidence Leaders oppose granting a postponement without requiring an independent medical examination due to a history of varied and growing lengths of incapacity claims by Mr Carrim.

“the heart of our opposition as Evidence Leaders is that the Commission should not grant a postponement without requiring an independent medical examination. That is the heart of the opposition by the Evidence Leaders to a postponement and the reason for that is because we have had a history of postponements where the length of time that we are told that Mr Carrim will be incapacitated has varied and grown each time.”

Mr Carrim's attorneys improperly believe that postponements for the hearing are available upon request, exemplified by a 13 May 2026 letter attempting to postpone the next hearing without sufficient medical evidence.

“Mr Carrim's attorneys seem to believe that a postponement is available for the asking. One example of that is at page 67 of the correspondence bundle ... a letter dated 13 May 2026 from Mr Carrim's attorneys ... this is again an attempt to get a postponement of the next hearing ... this report is highly personal, suffice to state that our client has been laid off for at least 8 to 12 weeks, and that was all. No medical certificate or report or note or anything accompanied this.”

There is a legal ruling prohibiting mention or publication of Mr Carrim's medical condition, treatment, health professionals involved, or the identity of his family members' names and addresses during the hearing of the postponement application.

“The legal representatives of Mr Carrim and the Evidence Leaders may not, during the hearing of the postponement application, mention Mr Carrim's medical condition, the nature of the treatment he is receiving, the identity and nature of practice the health professionals attending to Mr Carrim in respect of the medical condition and the medical facility where he is admitted. Publicaton or dissemination in any format of that information is prohibited. The legal representatives of Mr Carrim and the Evidence Leaders may not during the hearing of the postponement application mention the names and residential and business addresses of Mr Carrim's family members.”

All postponements until 15 July were granted on the understanding that Mr Carrim was hospitalized and his movements were restricted.

“all of the postponements were granted, we were permitted on the understanding by the Commission and the Evidence Leaders that Mr Carrim was hospitalized and that his movement was restricted”

On 14 July whistleblower reports questioned Mr Carrim's movements, leading to the acquisition of CCTV footage that corroborated the whistleblowers' accounts.

“It was only when there were the two whistle blower reports on the 14th of July that the issue of Mr Carrim's movements were put into question. The Evidence Leaders then obtained the CCTV footage to corroborate what we would beentold by the whistle blowers”

Mr Carrim was allowed to bring a substantive application for a postponement to address his movements, supported by affidavits from his second wife and doctor describing restrictions on his movement and interactions.

“Mr Carrim was then afforded the opportunity to bring a substantive application for the postponement and in that application an opportunity was provided to address the latest information regarding Mr Carrim's movements around the Cape and this is addressed in two affidavits. The one... is by his second wife and the second affidavit is by his doctor”

Mr Carrim's hospital leave was strictly controlled, with leaves authorized only for specific purposes, subject to conditions including searches, and the 14 July four-hour excursion was under such restrictions.

“any leave from the hospital would be authorized for specific purposes, that there were passes that were subject to strict conditions, including searches, etcetera, including on the return of the 14 July excursion, which was said to have been a four hour chaperoned excursion”

Mr Carrim did not travel to Mahikeng or any other location in the North West during the period starting 13 April 2026, according to his wife's affidavit.

“My husband undertook no other travel during this period and did not travel to Mahikeng or any other location in the North West”

There is a conflicting affidavit painting a different picture that a trip to the North West took place during the week Mr Carrim was with his first wife, with the first wife unaware of the trip.

“a different picture is painted and what the deponents say later is that that trip to the North West took place during the week when Mr Carrim is with his first wife and so, says the deponent, she did not know about the trip and that is why she did not say anything about it”

Mr Carrim's wife and first wife communicate regularly, specifically about Mr Carrim's well-being and health.

“what they communicate about is Mr Carrim's well-being ... And his health”

The visit by Mr Carrim to Mahikeng was to see his daughter and was important to him because he had not seen her for some time.

“this is just a visit to the daughter which was quite important to Mr Carrim, because as I understood it he had not seen her for”

There was a medical incident requiring Mr Carrim to return quickly, accompanied by a deponent who took him to the doctor and was with him during the consultation.

“because there was a medical incident ... That was the deponent who took Mr Carrim to the doctor and accompanied him and was with him during the consultation”

The medical incident led to a sudden need for Mr Carrim to return and was documented in the second wife's affidavit.

“That is right. And it was the deponent who took Mr Carrim to the doctor and accompanied him and was with him during the consultation”

Geolocation data from Mr Carrim's cellphone was obtained showing his movements and was shared with his legal representatives on 17 July, prompting further affidavits.

“the Evidence Leaders obtained geolocation data. That is the data of Mr Carrim's cell phone that tracks the movements ... We presented that information to Mr Carrim's legal representatives on the 17th of July. That then prompted two further affidavits”

On 14 July, Mr Carrim was at a shopping centre Woolworths, ate a meal at Kauai, and obtained flu medication, all while being supervised by a security detail.

“confirmed in paragraph 27 that Mr Carrim was at a shopping centre, that he was at Woolworths, that he then purchased a meal from Kauai, finished his meal at Kauai and thereafter obtained flu medication. He was supervised throughout by his security detail”

Mr Carrim was hospitalized and his movements were restricted, with all postponements of proceedings initially permitted on that understanding until the whistleblower reports on 14 July questioned it.

“Mr Carrim was hospitalized and that his movement was restricted”

Mr Carrim was given an opportunity to bring a substantive application for postponement and responded with affidavits from his second wife and his doctor detailing the restrictions on his movements.

“Mr Carrim was then afforded the opportunity to bring a substantive application for the postponement and in that application an opportunity was provided to address the latest information regarding Mr Carrim's movements around the Cape and this is addressed in two affidavits. The one... is by his second wife and the second affidavit is by his doctor.”

Any leave from the hospital for Mr Carrim was authorized strictly for specific purposes, with passes subject to strict conditions including searches and return at specific times, including a 4-hour excursion on 14 July from 1:30pm to 5pm.

“any leave from the hospital would be authorized for specific purposes... passes that were subject to strict conditions, including searches...including on the return of the 14 July excursion, which was said to have been a four hour chaperoned excursion that took place between 1:30 in the afternoon and 5 p.m. in the afternoon”

Mr Carrim did not travel to Mahikeng or any other location in the North West during the period since 13 April 2026 according to affidavits from his wife and others; a contrary affidavit says he did travel during the week in question with his first wife but this is disputed as implausible given regular communication between the wives.

“My husband undertook no other travel during this period and did not travel to Mahikeng or any other location in the North West”

The regular communication between Mr Carrim's wives is focused on Mr Carrim's well-being and health, not every movement or travel.

“what they communicate about is Mr Carrim's well-being ... and his health”

Mr Carrim wanted to visit his daughter in Mafikeng, which was the reason for this particular travel, and not to visit his first wife.

“Mr Carrim who wanted to go there to see ... his daughter”

Mr Carrim’s visit to Mafikeng was important to him because he had not seen his daughter for some time.

“it was just a visit to the daughter which was quite important to Mr Carrim because as I understood it he had not seen her for ...”

There was a medical incident that led to Mr Carrim's return from Mafikeng, which required a consultation accompanied by the deponent.

“there was a medical incident ... and it was the deponent who took Mr Carrim to the doctor and accompanied him and was with him during the consultation”

Mr Carrim's movements to North West became contentious and the doctor’s affidavit confirms the 14 July incident lasted 4 hours for purchasing toiletries and medication, with precise times recorded in facility's records.

“The doctor's version on the 14th of July in his first affidavit ... the description of the 14th of July incident ... confirmation that it was 4 hours ... for the purpose of purchasing toiletries, over the counter flumedication”

The doctor states the facility's records show Mr Carrim departed at approximately 1:30 pm and returned at approximately 5 pm on 14 July, and such excursions are not unusual.

“the facility's records reflect that he departed at approximately 1:30 and returned at approximately 5... these kind of excursions are not unusual”

Geolocation data from Mr Carrim's cellphone was obtained and shared with his legal representatives on 17 July to track his movements.

“The Evidence Leaders obtained geolocation data. That is the data of Mr Carrim's cell phone that tracks the movements of the phone. We know from the first deponent that Mr Carrim keeps his phone with him. We presented that information to Mr Carrim's legal representatives on the 17th of July.”

Mr Carrim was at Woolworths shopping centre, purchased a meal from Kauai, ate there, and then obtained medication while under security supervision.

“Mr Carrim was at a shopping centre, that he was at Woolworths... she then purchased a meal from Kauai, finished his meal at Kauai and thereafter obtained flumedication. He was supervised throughout by his security detail.”

The affidavit shows that Mr Carrim leaves the facility almost every day and is out for at least eight hours, sometimes longer, contradicting earlier patient references.

“almost every single day Mr Carrim leaves the facility and that on most days he is out of the facility for at least eight hours, sometimes longer”

The affidavits and evidence presented show shifting accounts from the deponents concerning Mr Carrim's movements, changing with presentation of new objective evidence.

“these shifting accounts in the affidavit are important, because they show that each time that the deponents are presented with, confronted with objective evidence concerning Mr Carrim's movements, the explanation changes”

The doctor’s medical assessment and report to the Commission were based on flawed factual foundation due to lack of full knowledge of Mr Carrim's comings and goings from the facility.

“the doctor’s own medical assessment and the report that was furnished to the Commission appears to have been based on a flawed factual foundation”

The doctor gave reports to the Commission based on information given by Mr Carrim, which is now known to be false, thus the reports do not hold true anymore.

“The doctor ... is relying on what Mr Carrim tells him about his movements ... Those reports do not hold true anymore”

Almost every single day Mr. Carrim leaves the facility and on most days he is out for at least eight hours, sometimes longer.

“almost every single day Mr Carrim leaves the facility and that on most days he is out of the facility for at least eight hours, sometimes longer.”

The affidavits of the deponents shift their accounts each time they are presented with objective evidence concerning Mr. Carrim's movements.

“each time that the deponents are presented with, confronted with objective evidence concerning Mr Carrim's movements, the explanation changes.”

The medical opinion given regarding Mr. Carrim's movements is based on flawed factual information as the doctor was not fully informed of the true movements.

“the doctor's own medical assessment and the report that was furnished to the Commission appears to have been based on a flawed factual foundation.”

The doctor relied on information from Mr. Carrim about his movements when giving reports, but later it was found that he was being given untruthful information and hence reports no longer hold true.

“the doctor, he is relying on what Mr Carrim tells him about his movements. He now knows that he is not being told the truth about the movements. ... Those reports do not hold true any more.”

It is quite telling that the doctor and the second wife move and change their allegations once confronted by objective facts about Mr. Carrim's movements.

“it is quite telling that you have these movements in the allegations on Mr Carrim's side, not by one person only. The second wife also moves or changes her allegations once confronted by facts that contradict what she says ... this is happening with the doctor as well.”

The expert was not tasked to assess Mr Carrim's paper and could not do so based only on the doctor's affidavit provided.

“this expert was not asked to do an assessment on paper of Mr Carrim, nor could he have been able to do so because all that he was provided with was their doctor's affidavit”

A postponement is requested so that Mr Carrim can appear on 14 August and an independent medical examiner can provide a report, which may affect that date.

“We request that the 14th of August be fixed as a date for Mr Carrim to appear and that in the intervening period that there is an appointment of an independent medical examiner who will provide a report and that might affect, then, the date of the 14th of August, but at least it will be on the basis of an independent expert.”

The expert was not asked to assess Mr Carrim's paper and could not do so because only the doctor's affidavit was provided, which lacked details like treatment protocols.

“this expert was not asked to do an assessment on paper of Mr Carrim, nor could he have been able to do so because all that he was provided with was their doctor's affidavit . And their doctor ... does not set out the details of things like the treatment protocol”

A postponement is requested to allow an independent medical examiner to be appointed to provide a report for the proceedings concerning Mr Carrim's appearance.

“We request that a postponement on the never-never must be rejected . We request that the 14th of August be fixed as a date for Mr Carrim to appear and that in the intervening period that there is an appointment of an independent medical examiner who will provide a report”

The doctor's view is that the long-term medical issue observed and treated after coming on board as treating doctor may have arisen and materially impacted the client prior to diagnosis and treatment, implying a condition predating treatment involvement.

“the doctor observed, diagnosed, and treated after he came on board as the treating doctor suggests that actually the condition could have arisen and materially impacted Mr Carrim even prior to when it was diagnosed and treated thereafter”

The medical incident observed by the treating doctor when he came on board suggests a long-term medical issue that may have impacted Mr Carrim prior to diagnosis and treatment.

“the doctor observed, diagnosed, and treated after he came on board as the treating doctor suggests that actually the condition could have arisen and materially impacted Mr Carrim even prior to when it was diagnosed and treated thereafter.”

From 4 May onwards, an ongoing phenomenon related to Mr Carrim's medical situation began, indicating the pressure on Ms Matlengwane to provide reference materials starting from March and April.

“importantl y is t h a t t h e p h e n o m e n o n o n l y s t a r t e d o n 4 M a y o n w a r d s... The pr es s u re i s o n h e r n o w.”

Mr Carrim is accused by the Evidence Leaders of avoiding accountability by using affidavits and clinicians to support his position and thereby shielding himself from direct questioning.

“In their view, the Evidence Leader's view, Mr Carrim is avoiding accountability at all costs... He is using the deponents of the affidavits and treating clinicians to aid him in order to do so”

Mr Carrim is alleged to have been confined to a hospital, but evidence including geolocation data indicates that he did not spend all his hours in the hospital, which is relevant information for the Commission's consideration.

“The geolocation material, as Ms Hassim says, what has always been the impression is that Mr Carrim is in hospital. He is confined to a hospital, right? And once there was information that in fact he does not spend all his hours in a hospital, that is relevant information...”

There has been an ongoing legal dispute about the reliability and medical validity of the doctor's evidence, with one side arguing that if the doctor were unreliable, he would not volunteer to provide evidence under oath.

“The approach of the Commission has not been to take a benign neutral position toward Mr Carrim, the deponents of Mr Carrim's affidavits, and even the treating doctor.”

The Evidence Leaders insist that Mr Carrim be subjected to an assessment by an independent doctor in order to counter the clinical conclusions reached by Mr Carrim's doctor, but this has not yet happened.

“the Evidence Leaders have done is to say Mr Carrim must be subjected to an assessment by an independent doctor... at this stage the point you make has not been reached.”

There is ongoing pressure related to events starting from 4 May, involving a medical expert whose credibility is being questioned but who has volunteered to give evidence under oath at the Commission.

“the phenomenon only started on 4 May onwards... This doctor has made himself available to the Commission in numerous instances”

Mr Carrim is accused by the Evidence Leaders of avoiding accountability by using affidavits and clinicians to support his position rather than directly addressing medical evidence, and the Commission has not cross-examined the doctor who has volunteered to confirm the evidence.

“In their view, the Evidence Leader's view, Mr Carrim is avoiding accountability at all costs... the one thing they have not done is they have not called the doctor to be cross-examined by them, and he has volunteered himself to do so”

Mr Carrim is confined to a hospital, but geolocation data and CCTV footage have been used to question whether he spends all his time there, raising relevant issues for the Commission.

“Mr Carrim is confined to a hospital... once there was information that in fact he does not spend all his hours in a hospital, that is relevant information to be brought to the Commission”

The Commission insists Mr Carrim should be subjected to assessment by an independent doctor to counter the clinical conclusions of Mr Carrim's doctor.

“the Evidence Leaders have done is to say Mr Carrim must be subjected to an assessment by an independent doctor... that would counter all of the clinical conclusions reached by Mr Carrim's doctor”

There has been shifts in the factual positions regarding Mr Carrim's medical evidence, and the Evidence Leaders are entitled to challenge these shifts.

“there has been a shifting of the goal posts, even by the doctor himself... the Evidence Leaders are perfectly entitled to challenge the doctor on that”

There are factual inaccuracies in affidavits provided by deponents, which are recognized and addressed in context, particularly regarding medical records related to Mr Carrim.

“they are, in fact, inaccuracies, hence the shifting of goalposts ... those inaccuracies relate to movement and what can be said about Mr Carrim's medical condition as a consequence”

Mr Carrim voluntarily agreed to an assessment regarding his medical condition without any resistance.

“there having been no resistance, as I understood you, by Mr Carrim to the possibility of voluntarily agreeing to an assessment”

There are factual inaccuracies in Mr Carrim's case about his medical condition and movement, but they are fully dealt with considering the pressured circumstances of affidavit depositions.

“Mr Carrim's case, as we sit here, actually accepts those, that they are, in fact, inaccuracies.”

Analyzing facts of movements in Mr Carrim's medical condition might lead to inaccurate clinical conclusions because such movements might be part of therapy and not contrary to treatment.

“The danger in analysing the facts of those movements would potentially lead you to draw an inaccurate clinical conclusion because the fact of those movements is not necessarily antithetical to the treatment he is receiving. In fact, in another part of the affidavit he actually says that it might form part of the therapy process.”

The replying affidavit regarding Mr Carrim's medical condition was confirmed by the treating doctor after consultation, affirming that the medical responses were doctor-confirmed despite being authored by a non-medical person.

“There has or should have been a signed confirmatory affidavit from the treating doctor in respect of the content of the replying affidavit and even if it does not say it in terms, I consulted with the doctor on X, Y and Z and he tells me here is the response. I would ask in a generous reading of that replying affidavit and the fact that it is confirmed by the doctor that the so-called medical responses are medical responses from a non-medical person but confirmed by the medical person themselves.”

Mr Premhid refers Commissioners and Counsel Khumalo to specific pages and paragraphs of the papers concerning the timeline and health condition of Mr Carrim, emphasizing references that discuss pre-existing health conditions.

“I am asking you to read 22 at the bottom of that same page, particularly where it says “health conditions appear to predate the Commission”... I would say that I would draw your attention to the last lines starting three lines from the bottom on page 37, paragraph 22.”

Mr Carrim alleges that the information implicating his fundamental rights to privacy and dignity includes private information about his medical condition, medical treatment, family movements, and security threats faced by him and his family.

“Mr Carrim alleges that the information implicating his fundamental rights to privacy and dignity is; private information relating to his medical condition and his medical treatment; private information about Mr Carrim's family movements and the security threats he and his family have faced”

Mr Carrim submits that public disclosure of this information would risk serious harm to his treatment, dignity, standing within his religious community and public life, place his children at further risk where threats have been made, and prejudice his wife's independent business and livelihood.

“Mr Carrim submits that public disclosure of this information would; risk serious harm to his treatment, dignity, standing within his religious community and public life; place his children at further risk in circumstances where threats have already been made; would prejudice his wife's independent business and livelihood, both of which have already been adversely affected by the publicity surrounding these proceedings”

The ruling on the postponement application provides a timeline for filings and hearings between 17 July and 24 July 2026, including furnishing Mr Carrim with factual and investigative material, reply affidavits, and written rulings on in-camera applications.

“The ruling in paragraph 1 deals with the postponement application ... The postponement application will be heard at 11:30 on Friday, 24 July ... The Commission will furnish Mr Carrim with a list of non-medical factual issues ... and any other investigative material currently in its possession... The Commission will serve and file an answering affidavit to the founding papers ... Mr Carrim will serve and file a consolidated founding affidavit ... The ruling for in-camera application to be decided by written ruling handed down on or before 18:00 on Thursday, 23 July.”

Mr Carrim was unable to appear due to hospital admission on 7 June but had no valid excuse for not responding to Regulation 10.6 notices regarding his companies' auditors and financial statements.

“He is not here today and we received a doctor's note yesterday that refers to his admission to hospital on the 7th of June... We are still waiting for Mr Carrim to tell us, for example, who the auditors of his companies are... there is nothing in the doctor's note that suggests his health conditions are of such an order that he has been unable to do that for two months... we are still waiting for Mr Carrim to furnish audited or even unaudited financial statements for three of his companies, Ziggy, Tasmica and Tameez...”

Mr Carrim is the ANC Treasurer in the North West region, where his companies have been paid hundreds of millions of rands by provincial and municipal government entities.

“companies in this group... have been paid hundreds of millions of rands from the North West Provincial Government and North West municipalities in the region of which he is the ANC Treasurer.”

Eyewitnesses at a shopping centre have independently confirmed seeing Mr Carrim arriving with an entourage and visiting Woolworths before going to have lunch at a restaurant there.

“they have now been confirmed by eyewitnesses at that shopping centre who we have independently contacted ... that someone who seemed very much to be Mr Carrim arrived at the shopping centre with an entourage, went into Woolworths before going off to have a late lunch at a restaurant in the shopping centre”

There is a concern that Mr Carrim may be taking liberties with the Commission, amplified by whistleblower reports that he has been seen at social gatherings in the North West despite his ostensible incapacity.

“we have a concern that Mr Carrim may be taking liberties with this Commission ... this concern is amplified by other whistle-blower reports that we have received indicating that Mr Carrim has been seen at social gatherings in the North West over his period of ostensible incapacity”

Subpoenas will be issued today to hospitals where Mr Carrim has been receiving treatment to establish admission and discharge dates, and to his doctor in Cape Town to establish dates of medical consultations.

“we are going to issue a subpoena later today to the hospitals at which he has been receiving treatment, to establish when he was admitted and when he was discharged ... also going to be issuing a subpoena to his doctor, who is based in Cape Town, to establish the dates on which he has seen Mr Carrim”

A formal postponement application regarding Mr Carrim's appearance is expected to be considered on Friday morning or lunchtime, with conditions for the application to address his hospital admissions, medical consultations, travel movements, social engagements, and business management over the last four months.

“The evidence leaders will reply to that postponement application by 6 p.m. tomorrow ... It could be heard by Friday morning at 9.30 ... if ... more time ... respond by 10.00 on Friday ... heard on Friday afternoon, not Friday morning ... What we do expect the postponement application to address is at least the following issues: The dates on which Mr Carrim has been admitted to hospital over the last four months ... The dates on which he is attended medical consultations over the last four months ... His travel movements over that period ... Whether he is attended social engagements over that period ... Whether he is played any role in the management of his businesses over that period ...”

Mr Chaska requests information on how Mr Carrim traveled from the North West to the Western Cape, including booking flights, and notes that if Mr Carrim can instruct others to book flights, he can also instruct others to give the names of accountants.

“I am interested to know how he travelled from the North West to the Western Cape. Did he book flights? Did he fly there? Because if he can give instructions to people to book flights to him, surely he can give instructions to people to give you the names of accountants.”

Mr Premhid refers to a confidential medical report concerning Mr Carrim and points out that the learned friend’s contention about inability to explain attendance is contradicted by medical evidence from an expert in a specific medical field.

“I am going to refer you to the confidential medical report ... When you read paragraph 1 of that report, that will deal with my learned friend's contention that there is an inability to explain attendance ... that is contradicted by the medical evidence of an expert in a particular field of medicine”

Mr Premhid asserts that the claim of hundreds of millions of rands of unlawful business dealings with the state is unproven and states that any business dealings may be lawful and are not established here or elsewhere.

“until such time that a Court orders otherwise, that there was unlawful business dealings with the state to the tune of those hundreds of millions of rands ... that there is business that may or may not be done to the tune of hundreds of millions of rands is neither here nor there”

Mr Premhid states Mr Carrim suffered a medical incident on 13 April and has been under medical treatment since, which impacts his ability to give undertakings in the Commission.

“On the 13th of April suffered the medical incident, and ... he has been in medical treatments since then, and so his ability ... must be construed having regard ... to that second paragraph”

Mr Premhid acknowledges whistleblower reports about social gatherings involving Mr Carrim were known before but that they are only learning about the facts in open proceedings today, which he places on record.

“these social gatherings were known about before, and it is the first time we are learning about these things today, and I must place this on record”

Mr Premhid emphasizes that he does not question Mr Carrim's ability to rely on allegations to raise questions about his position before the Commission and submits respectfully.

“I do not for one minute question my learned friend's ability to rely on those allegations to raise a question about Mr Carrim's position in front of you, we would respectfully submit”

It is regrettable that they are learning about a formal postponement application concerning Mr Carrim's absence, due to him being in hospital, in an open proceeding rather than earlier.

“It is unfortunate we are learning about this in an open proceeding ... given that the client is not here because he is presently in the hospital”

There is not agreement on whether Mr Carrim has provided CCTV footage he already has in his possession showing vehicles transporting him yesterday, but the license vehicle registration details have been provided.

“I do not think we are in agreement on that ... my learned friend very kindly has given me the licence vehicle registration of the vehicles that were apparently transporting my client or not transporting my client yesterday”

Mr Premhid is concerned that the postponement application and allegations about his client's movements are being used to undermine unchallenged medical evidence.

“I am now concerned that we are inadvertently using the postponement application and the allegations regarding the movements of my client or otherwise, as a mechanism through the back door to undermine the otherwise unimpugned medical evidence in front of you”

The Chairperson is addressing the impropriety regarding how Mr Carrim came to know about certain information, which is separate from how Mr Carrim deals with that information.

“the impropriety that you suggest with regard to how you came to know, is what I am addressing. That has nothing to do with how Mr Carrim then deals with the information”

Mr Carrim's application for postponement should directly address new information related to his medical certificates and attendance and explain why he cannot provide or facilitate the information requested by the Commission.

“when you apply for the postponement, why is it ... that he should not, in the application for a postponement, deal with those? If he says, I was never out of town, I was never at this alleged food outlet, and therefore my medical certificate stands ... I do not see what the hurdle is in Mr Carrim dealing with new information on that basis”

Mr Carrim has not provided information requested some time ago on the basis that he is not well, but new developments suggest he is going about his life, raising questions about his notability and ability to provide information or instructions to the Commission.

“Mr Carrim has not provided it on the basis that he is not well. Now, these developments ... suggest that Mr Carrim is going on about his life. That raises the question ... how can it be that he is notable, either himself to furnish that information, or to do so through others, and he is afforded an opportunity to respond ... and to move the application on Friday”

There is a substantial business group carrying on apparently in the absence of Mr Carrim.

“there is a very substantial business group that is carrying on in the apparent absence of Mr Carrim .”

Mr Carrim has not provided details such as financial statements and auditor identities for three of his companies, despite repeated requests.

“we cannot get , through a simple request from Mr Carrim , details like financial statements of three of those companies in the group , the identity of the auditor of three of those companies who we still have not been able to ascertain from repeated requests to Mr Carrim .”

If Mr Carrim can continue managing his businesses remotely from his sick bed, he should also be able to provide the external information when requested, but he has not done so for months.

“if he can keep his businesses ticking over remotely from his sick bed , he can also issue an instruction that the information that exists external to him can be made available to us . And he has not done that for months now .”

There is a suggestion that Mr Carrim should make himself available for an independent medical examination, but it was said that the commission does not have the power to compel this.

“there was a suggestion on the table that Mr Carrim should make himself available for independent medical examination and we were told , oh no , you do not have the power to do that . You are not a High Court with powers under the rules . You cannot do that . He will not make himself available without your , you know , and you do not have the power to do that .”

Mr Carrim has not made a formal postponement application but is proceeding on an assumption that he can have a postponement.

“Mr Carrim comes here asking for a postponement without making a postponement application. We have information that makes us concerned about the bona fides of his claim to a postponement application.”

The Commission will arrange an independent psychiatric or other medical examination for Mr Carrim to investigate his medical conditions and provide a report.

“If Mr Carrim wants to make himself available for our own independent psychiatric or other medical examination, we will do that. We will do that and we will arrange that an appropriate specialist, dealing with whatever medical conditions he has... are investigated and a report is furnished.”

The Commission is willing to tailor any camera process tightly to address privacy concerns raised in connection to Mr Carrim’s matter.

“If there are legitimate concerns in relation to privacy, we are happy to accommodate them, but whatever happens in that regard needs to be tailored very tightly, so that any in camera process is confined to that which is necessary to address the privacy concern.”

Mr Chaskalson clarified that the medical certificate has been subject to doubt and the suggestion is for Mr Carrim to undergo an independent examination.

“Mr Chaskalson to simply be making the point that you are not correct to say this medical certificate has no doubt cast on it and all he was saying was we have said he should go for an independent examination...”

Mr Chaskalson's team seeks information about Mr Carrim's hospital admissions, medical consultations, travel, social engagements, and business management over the last four months, including travel to Cape Town possibly for hospitalisation.

“What we were asking for was the dates on which Mr Carrim has been admitted to hospital over the last four months. The dates on which Mr Carrim has attended medical consultations... His travel movements... How he travelled to Cape Town... Whether Mr Carrim has attended social engagements... Whether he has played a role in the management of his business...”

Commissioner Khumalo is concerned about the specifics of Mr Carrim's travel from the North West to Cape Town and requests detail on flight bookings and travel arrangements.

“In his presentation, Mr Chaskalson said they have information that he has been travelling from the North West... So unless he drove to Cape Town, I am assuming he would have flown from either OR Tambo or the other airport... If you can give instructions to anybody to book flights for you, then you can give instructions to those who are running the business to provide the detail the Commission is looking for.”

Adv Baloyi SC advises broadening the inquiry from Mr Carrim's business management to business affairs to avoid confusion with purely operational management.

“Mr Chaskalson, you have narrowed down his activities, business activities, to management. Can I suggest that it be in the business affairs and not narrow it down to management, because management would suggest, could easily be interpreted as being purely operational.”

There is media speculation risk regarding Mr Carrim's medical condition pending the Friday hearing.

“this Commission issues a ruling essentially stopping speculation about Mr Carrim's medical condition ... there is a risk coming out of today's hearing, there may be wild speculation in the media”

Mr Carrim was hospitalized and is medically unfit to testify at this hearing.

“Mr Carrim has been hospitalized, so he cannot be here today”

Notices requesting detailed information about certain payments and company financials linked to Mr Carrim were served but have not yet been responded to by Mr Carrim.

“Those details were thereafter, well, incorporated into a Regulation 10.6 notice that was dated 8th May 2026, and that was served on Mr Carrim by the Sheriff on 12th May ... Some of these are fairly routine details ... And a supplementary notice dated 20th May was sent to Mr Carrim and his attorneys when there was no response to the earlier notice ... thus far, we have received no response to that either.”

Mr Carrim promised to provide audited or unaudited financial statements and explanations for his companies, but has not yet done so.

“an undertaking that he would provide us with a copy of an agreement or a draft agreement between himself and companies of Mr Maumela, and also communications between himself and Mr Carrim ... thus far, we have received no response to that either”

Mr Carrim has not complied with the Commission's request to be examined by a specialist to confirm his medical fitness to testify.

“we asked that Mr Carrim make himself available for examination by a specialist appointed by the Commission to confirm that he was indeed not medically fit to comply, and he has not yet responded, or has not yet complied with that request”

Mr Carrim has been medically unfit to appear for this second time and the Commission requests to postpone his appearance to 15 July 2026 to allow for possible recovery or confirmation of his medical state.

“So we sit in a situation today where this is the second appearance for which Mr Carrim has been medically unfit to appear ... we accept that he is not available to testify today, and that he has been admitted to hospital, so we cannot have him here today ... we would ask of the Commission is to postpone his appearance to the 15th of July”

If Mr Carrim is not available to testify on 15 July 2026 due to medical unfitness, and does not submit to an independent medical examination confirming incapacity, proceedings will recommend his prosecution for hindrance under the Commission's Act.

“If he is not here and is still, on his version, medically unfit, we will no longer seek his appearance on the 15th of July, but if he has subjected himself to independent examination by a specialist appointed by the Commission, and that independent specialist confirms his incapacity to testify, we will not ask for him to be called again ... If Mr Carrim does not agree to be examined by an independent specialist, then we will ask the Commission to recommend that he be prosecuted under Section 5 and 6 of the Commission's Act and Regulation 12.2 for hindering the proceedings of the Commission”

When Mr Carrim was initially hospitalized, it was explicitly stated to the Commission that the legal team cannot act without instructions from the client if the client is medically indisposed, meaning the inability to deliver documents was due to Mr Carrim's medical condition, not wilful non-compliance.

“when Mr Carrim was initially hospitalized, it was explicitly stated to the Commission that the legal team, as creatures of instruction, cannot act without instructions from their client, and if their client is medically indisposed... it stands to reason that this allegation of not complying must be put in its proper context, that it is not wilful, and it is because the ability to deliver those documents is directly hamstrung as a result of Mr Carrim's medical condition”

There have been four subsequent medical reports making it clear that Mr Carrim is not able to attend the Commission nor fully engage with his legal team regarding instructions due to his medical condition.

“all the subsequent medical reports of which there have been four reports which make it abundantly clear that Mr Carrim is not only able to attend the Commission, he is also not fully able to engage with his own legal team regarding his ability to give instructions”

Possibility of subjecting Mr Carrim to a medical examination by a specialist of the Commission's choice has been raised before and is not a new issue raised for the first time yesterday.

“it was not raised yesterday for the first time in the correspondence. It had been raised prior, and that the parties had been engaging on that.”

The legal prescripts and powers of the Commission may not be unfettered and are subject to questions of remit and extent of mandate, which impacts the authority to order independent medical examinations concerning Mr Carrim.

“the question of the degree of the fettering of your power is tied directly into the issue of the mandate... you have an unfettered power to create the appropriate... but that power can never be unfettered”

A compelled medical examination of the client potentially breaches his medical rights under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Health Act and raises a question of vires and competency regarding the commission's discretion.

“It is a compelled examination. That is how we understand the proposal being put, and that which potentially breaches his medical rights whilst under treatment by a treating doctor in a manner that potentially breaches Sections 14 and 15 of the National Health Act”

If Mr Carrim does not voluntarily avail himself for the medical examination, the commission can only ask for such examination in a non-obligatory way and cannot compel it, thus addressing statutory prescription concerns.

“And if a ruling or directive from the Commission were to direct that Mr Carrim avail himself for such an examination, but be couched in a manner that does not make it obligatory that he do so... bearing in mind the fallback position that Mr Chaskalson has placed before us, in the event that Mr Carrim does not do so, would that take care of your concerns about the statutory prescripts”

There are concerns about adverse inferences being drawn against Mr Carrim for not participating in a voluntary medical examination, which must be addressed carefully in light of the nature of the commission's request and opportunity to respond.

“... if it is attenuated to being voluntary, that might not be objectionable in and of itself, but then it depends on what weight will be placed on the election that is otherwise voluntary to ask the Commission to draw adverse inferences against my client for not participating in a voluntary request...”

Non-participation in the voluntary medical examination should not be construed as proof that Mr Carrim is a 'naughty person'; adverse inferences must be carefully considered and not presumptive.

“I am talking about the adverse inference in the specific instance of not participating in a voluntary medical examination. ... If Chair puts it to me in that way ... you are not elevating the non-participation in the voluntary examination process to say, ah, that is the evidence that you are naughty, I am drawing the adverse inference, I can accept that.”

Undisputed evidence before the commission must be evaluated on its own merits without letting adverse inferences based on failure to testify override the consideration of the evidence present.

“There is an inference being drawn and becomes adverse because of one's failure to testify”

Determining adverse inferences requires first making findings on Mr Carrim's condition; without such findings, drawing adverse inferences is difficult.

“To get to that, what you call an adverse inference, to get to that, I think we would have to first make findings as to Mr Carrim's condition.”

The Commission might choose to cross-examine medical professionals and their own experts regarding the medical evidence presented for Mr Carrim's fitness to testify.

“the Commission might choose to cross-examine the particular medical professionals, they might wish to lead the evidence of their own medical examiner”

ADV Chaskalson SC does not accept most of the submissions including that Mr Carrim has not been continuously hospitalized since April and tends to get hospitalized just as his appearances before this Commission are scheduled, which is worrying.

“we do not accept many of these submissions and in particular, the one worrying thing that we see is what the medical reports disclose is that Mr Carrim has not been hospitalized continuously since April. He tends to get hospitalized just as his appearances before this Commission are scheduled, and that is worrying”

Mr Carrim has failed to furnish basic documents such as financial statements despite repeated requests, which is concerning given his fitness to testify and travel outside the country when last testifying.

“very basic requests for some documents to be furnished, like financial statements... and we still wait for the documents that he promised us when he gave evidence”

There is worry that Mr Carrim tends to seek hospitalization around his appearance dates at the Commission, which may or may not be coincidental or related to stress.

“a pattern of, as an appearance date appears, suddenly, Mr Carrim needs hospitalization. Now, it may be perfectly true... or possibly not by coincidence, his medical condition compounded by the stress of an imminent appearance requires his hospitalization”

Mr Carrim's legal team requested a postponement of his testimony until 15 July 2026.

“Mr Carrim and his legal team know what our concerns are, but all we want is a postponement until 15 June”

Mr Mogotsi excluded some material from submission to the Chief Evidence Leader, exemplified by a WhatsApp message with a laughing emoji but tears on the face, which was not a call but was nonetheless excluded.

“There is the one during Mr Carrim's testimony where Mr Mogotsi sent to the Chief Evidence Leader what was normally used as laughing emojis, but with tears coming down the person's face...That too was excluded.”

Mr Mogotsi unsolicitedly offered to provide information about Mr Carrim to Mr Chaskalson, which is not disputed by Mr Mogotsi himself.

“he does not deny that he is the one that approached Mr Chaskalson with an offer to provide information about Mr Carrim”

The approach by Mr Mogotsi to Mr Chaskalson with an offer to provide information about Mr Carrim cannot logically serve as a ground for complaint or recusal related to bias or unfairness.

“how can it be a legitimate ground for complaint that Mr Chaskalson was talking to me about Mr Carrim? How can it be? Just logically ... it can never be a basis for claims of bias or fear of bias”

Mr Mogotsi reached out to Mr Chaskalson and engaged him in communication to offer information relevant to Mr Carrim.

“Mr Mogotsi unsolicited offered to Mr Chaskalson that I will give you information about Mr Carrim ... I have stuff on Carrim”

If Mr Mogotsi has truthful, verifiable, and corroborated information, Evidence Leaders should ask him to provide that information to put it to Mr Carrim for a public hearing response.

“If Mr Mogotsi has information which is the truth and can be verified and corroborated through other means, what is wrong with Evidence Leaders asking Mr Mogotsi to provide that information so that it can be put to Mr Carrim?”

If Mr Mogotsi's information has the effect of throwing Mr Carrim under the bus and if true, there is nothing wrong with that.

“And if that information has the effect of throwing Mr Carrim under the bus, if that information is true, what is wrong with that?”

Witnesses who implicate others in this Commission give evidence that if helpful must be put to the implicated person for dispute opportunity.

“because that is what witnesses do in this Commission. They give information, and if it is helpful to the Commission, it must be put to Mr Carrim so that he is given the opportunity to dispute it.”

Mr Mogotsi's impression was that a promise was made that he would be protected from adverse findings if he gives debtor incriminating evidence on Mr Carrim.

“That he was made a promise, that he would be protected from adverse findings if he gives debtor incriminating evidence on Mr Carrim.”

Mr Mogotsi approached the Evidence Leader and gave evidence relating to his interactions with Mr Carrim, which was not hidden and was discussed openly.

“Mr Mogotsi had approached the Evidence Leader and had given them evidence relating to his interactions with Mr Carrim”

The Chief Investigator confirms Mr Mogotsi was persistently calling after Mr Carrim started giving evidence and threw Mr Mogotsi under the bus.

“The Chief Investigator greets them and then says: “Mogotsi has been calling me nonstop.” ... “Mogotsi has been calling me nonstop since Carrim started giving evidence and threw him under the bus.””

Regarding the 9 March call, the evidence leader states he does not have a detailed recollection of what was discussed but does deny encouraging Mr Mogotsi to give false evidence against Mr Carrim and categorically denies this.

“On page 82, at paragraph 17, this is what he says: “I have no detailed recollection of what was discussed.” ...On 84, paragraph 103, he says: “I would never have encouraged Mr Mogotsi to give false evidence against Mr Carrim. I categorically deny.””

There is a specific denial that the speaker did not suggest protecting Mr Carrim from adverse findings by the Commission if evidence implicating him was found.

“I deny that I suggested that if he could find evidence to implicate Mr Carrim, I would protect him from adverse findings from the Commission.”

There was communication between Mr Mogotsi and the evidence leader about Mr Carrim, involving discussions to defend Mr Mogotsi and possibly discredit Mr Carrim.

“there was communication between Mr Mogotsi and the evidence leader. And during those conversations, a discussion came in regard to Mr Carrim... regarding Mr Mogotsi to defend himself and, if the need arises, to throw Mr Carrim under the bus.”

The communication between Mr Mogotsi and Mr Carrim gave an impression of cooperation in providing information against another witness, which may undermine the appearance of impartiality.

“the communication between himself and Mr Carrim formed an impression that this cooperation in providing information against another witness was linked to his treatment in the proceedings. Whether intended or not, such perception undermines the appearance of impartiality.”

Mr Mogotsi admitted to deleting six calls to Mr Chaskalson on 9 and 10 March during Mr Carrim's evidence but claimed the calls were not relevant.

“What he deleted were 6 calls to Mr Chaskalson, which Mr Chaskalson declined to answer. Three calls on the 9th of March, the day on which Mr Carrim first began his evidence, and 3 further calls during the lunch adjournment of Mr Carrim's testimony... He admits to curating the WhatsApp account, the WhatsApp record rather, selecting what he considered to be relevant.”

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 Chaskalson categorically denies inviting Mr Mogotsi to give false evidence against Mr Carrim or suggesting he find evidence to implicate Mr Carrim and then protect him from adverse findings.

“He concludes at paragraph 23 with his categorical denials that he invited Mr Mogotsi to give false evidence against Mr Carrim, or that he suggested that if Mr Mogotsi could find evidence to implicate Mr Carrim, that he would then protect him from adverse findings.”

Mr Mogotsi initiated conversations with Mr Chaskalson seeking assistance to avoid being used as a scapegoat, expressing concern about Mr Carrim's blame.

“Mr Mogotsi pursued Mr Chaskalson. He initiated the conversations. He says he was concerned that Mr Carrim was throwing him under the bus. He sought assistance to avoid being used as a scapegoat”

Mr Mogotsi offered to provide evidence against Mr Carrim and the Medicare24 contract, but also peddled falsehoods to Mr Chaskalson to try to postpone Mr Carrim's testimony.

“He then offered to provide evidence against Mr Carrim and the Medicare24 contract. But what is more, as we now know, he was also peddling falsehoods to Mr Chaskalson ... in order to precipitate a postponement of Mr Carrim's evidence”

Mr Mogotsi deliberately gave false evidence to secure postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony, which is a serious dishonest manipulation of the Commission process.

“He deliberately gave false evidence to secure the postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony. That admission is serious because it does not only suggest dishonesty, but it is a deliberate attempt to manipulate the evidence leader and this Commission's process”

Mr Mogotsi deliberately lied about a meeting with Maumela and Suleimani that never took place to engineer a postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony.

“he lied when he said there was such a meeting ... I did this deliberately to encourage him to postpone Suleiman's testimony”

Mr Mogotsi intentionally misled the evidence leader to engineer a postponement of a witness who was giving evidence.

“why would he mislead the evidence leader about a meeting that never took place and say under oath that he did so in order to engineer the postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony”

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 Carrim contacted Mr Mogotsi prior to investing money in Medicare 24 to verify the validity of the tender.

“you were contacted by Mr Carrim prior to his investing money in Medicare 24 and he wanted you to verify if the tender was indeed valid”

Mr Carrim's first payment of R5 million towards the contract was on 26 June 2024.

“His version is his first payment of R 5 million was on the 26th of June 2024”

Mr Mogotsi confirms he and Mr Carrim were friends but are no longer friends.

“Mr Carrim is your friend, is he not? That is correct. We were friends. You were friends? Ja. No, no not [no longer]”

Mr Mogotsi says he cannot speak on behalf of Mr Carrim regarding payment dates but confirms Mr Carrim wanted to invest.

“what he may have told you and what he has told me, I cannot speak on his behalf. I can only tell you when he spoke to me that he wanted to invest”

It is unclear whether Mr Carrim paid before or after 26 June 2024; Mr Mogotsi does not know the payment timing.

“As to whether he has paid the money before or after, I do not know”

Mr Mogotsi accepts Mr Carrim contacted him prior to investing money in Medicare 24 to verify the validity of the tender.

“Yes, that is on the statement. Yes, that is correct”

Mr Carrim started investing money in June and July 2024, with the first recorded payment on 26 June 2024 according to bank records.

“he started investing in June and July and we have seen the bank records ... none of them were made prior to 26 June”

Mr Mogotsi cannot recall exact dates of contacting Mr Carrim about the contract and does not want to incriminate himself by guessing.

“I cannot remember ... let me not incriminate myself”

Mr Mogotsi and Mr Carrim kept in touch through 2024 regarding the contract as per Mr Mogotsi's statement, but he cannot answer for Mr Carrim's side.

“Mr Carrim's evidence was that you kept in touch with him or he kept in touch with you right through 2024 ... If what you are asking is in my statement, yes. If it is about Carrim I cannot answer for him”

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 confirms he was approached by Mr Carrim before he invested in the contract, in around June 2024.

“Mr Carrim approached you before he invested in the contract, and he invested ... on the 26th of June”

At the time Mr Carrim approached Mr Mogotsi about the contract, the new cabinet was likely already known and General Cele was known to not be Minister of Police.

“By the time Mr Carrim approached you, ... you would certainly have known that General Cele was not going to be Minister of Police”