No picture yet. Upload one or paste an image URL.
Mr Matlala is due to commence a criminal trial on the coming Monday and has the constitutional right to attend and be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
“he is due to commence with a trial on Monday. We believe that he has got the constitutional right to attend this trial and be regarded as innocent until proven guilty”
Mr Matlala's constitutional rights override any compulsion by the Commission to give evidence prior to the conclusion of criminal proceedings.
“I respectfully submit that when you have a person that is either an accused or a suspect, I respectfully submit that your constitutional rights, with the greatest of respect, overwrite the compulsion that there would be from the Commission's side for him to give evidence”
Mr Matlala's lawyers believe that his constitutional rights cannot be taken away by the Commission during a fact-finding exercise and that evidence from the Commission side may be untruthful or unlawfully obtained.
“we so strongly believe that your constitutional rights, where the Constitution is the most important document in this country, those rights cannot be taken away from you by a Commission who has got a certain mandate and who has, to quote my learned friend, on a fact-finding exercise. And more so, I think what we have done, Chairperson, we have tried to set out to you why we believe that the constitutional rights... potentially, is either not the truth or unlawfully obtained”
Mr Matlala's legal team stated that the issue preventing earlier affidavit submission was due to a plea agreement entered into involving their client and IDAC.
“...came in late, through a different legal representative with IDAC, the gentleman that has been named here was part of that, entered into some, to a 105A plea agreement.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER confirms the position that until IDAC material is received and considered, Mr Matlala will not file a statement or testify.
“...is the position that until you have received and considered, as his Counsel, or his legal team, until you have received and considered the IDAC material, Mr Matlala will not file a statement and he will not testify.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER explains they have made common cause on issues that their client can answer and that the client does not know certain persons listed in Regulation 10.6, but they cannot address other issues until shown what can be answered in black and white.
“the only thing that is, that he can say to you at this point, I do not know A, B, C, D, and E. The rest of the issues, we cannot deal with.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER states it would not be desirable to have a piecemeal hearing, yet also clarifies the client may have to confirm not knowing certain persons under oath.
“the only part of the Regulation 10.6 that we are ad idem with each other... the only thing that is, that he can say to you at this point, I do not know these people... The rest of the issues, again, I want to emphasize, we want to cooperate.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER highlights the importance of knowing what the client can answer before allowing the client to testify in the Commission to ensure truthful evidence based on facts.
“I am trying to ensure that my client comes to this Commission and gives evidence to you that is to your benefit, i.e. the work of the Commission, and not for him to answer things that...”
ADV VANDENHEEVER submits that they can only form common cause with the client saying they do not know persons A, B, C, D, and E on the list in Regulation 10.6, the rest of the issues cannot be dealt with at the stage without further information.
“the only thing is that my client can answer... that we say that we form common cause on is who he does not know on the list of the 10.6. The rest of the issues, if I may please... The rest of the issues, I cannot say to you, I am prepared to answer this because I do not know if I can.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER states the concern that their client might sit and say they do not know various persons on oath, and that legal officers cannot allow a client to testify without knowing what they are saying is right.
“That is the only issue that we can form common cause on that he can, at this point, answer... We are trying to come to the Commission and answer what we can. The problem is... I can only do so if I know what he can answer is shown to me in black and white... I will not perform my duty as an officer of the court if I allow that...”
Mr Matlala's counsel insists that advising a client not to answer questions to avoid self-incrimination is their ethical obligation, and they must ensure the affidavit they submit is correct.
“I advise my client, that is my duty... I do not know a single attorney or advocate that will allow their client to depose to an affidavit if they are not satisfied that what is in that affidavit is correct...”
Mr Matlala's counsel wants him to assist the Commission but only when he is satisfied with the correctness of the materials and without fear of perjury accusations due to inconsistent statements.
“I want my client to come and assist the Commission, but I want him at the end of the day to do so free of anybody coming and saying you are committing perjury because you have got something to the contrary...”
The counsel clarifies that the refusal to submit a statement or testify is not contingent solely on receiving material from IDAC, but involves other considerations.
“My position is not, it does not only relate to IDAC...”
ADV VANDENHEEVER states he is ethically bound to act in a manner that delays filing a statement until IDAC material is received, but believes the statement can be filed relatively quickly once the material is obtained.
“Chairperson, of course that is my position at this point in time, because I am ethically bound to act in that manner. ... I truly believe we can get the information relatively quickly.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER states he is protecting his client's rights by adhering to the decision not to file or testify before receiving IDAC material.
“Part of what I am doing here is to protect my client's rights, I stand by that.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER has instructions to file a statement as soon as possible, even without the IDAC material.
“My instructions are that we will file a statement as soon as possible.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER expects the statement can be filed within two weeks, assuming recordings referenced by witnesses in the Commission are received.
“We think we can do it in two weeks. ... that we get the recordings that has been referred to and relied on by certain witnesses in the Commission.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER did not have access to important recordings until recently, which delayed their ability to act and get instructions.
“With the recordings that was not given to us, and which is quite important. ... we have got limited access to the client. I personally had to phone the head of C-Max to ask... And he is not even finished listening to the recording. So it has also impeded quite a bit of the issues.”
Mr Matlala's statement will be submitted by 8 July 2026 despite some documents still awaited, with the potential to supplement the statement later.
“Mr Matlala's statement will be submitted tomorrow, the 8th of July...the parties are now agreed...with the reservation of the client's rights pertaining to certain documents that we are still awaiting...we might then supplement if it is not timeously done”