Section 35

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

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

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

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

Section 35 of the Constitution provides protection against self-incrimination during criminal proceedings, but it does not apply to the current context before the Commission.

“Section 35 does not apply to this situation... there is a difference between section 35 and section 34 because they address different situations.”

There is a difference legally and philosophically between protections under section 35 and section 34 of the Constitution.

“That is why there is a difference between section 35 and section 34 of the Constitution because they address different situations.”