An evidence leader found two additional payments to Medicare from Mr Carrim's company Tasmica Construction that were not disclosed by Mr Carrim.
“the evidence leader identified two additional payments to Medicare from your client, which your client has not disclosed. The payments were in an amount of 1 million on 27 June 2024, and an amount of 1.12 on 7 October 2024. Both payments were made from your client's company, Tasmica Construction.”
The evidence leader has prepared hundreds of pages of spreadsheets and detailed analysis related to evidence, which Mr Bhana expected to deal with in relation to Mr Suleiman's evidence; defence counsel seeks more time to respond to this volume of evidence.
“I am holding it up. It is a file full of hundreds of pages of spreadsheets and detailed analysis that had been done. So we expected to have been sitting here dealing with Mr Suleiman's evidence yesterday, and I said to you, on the roof, expected to go through all of this.”
Mr Bhana stated the hundreds of pages of evidence documents included numerous transactions and that they did not yet have an adequate or fair opportunity to deal with this evidence.
“The documents look like this, intense line items of hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of transactions. Now, it might be that the Commissions say it is not intending to refer to all of those transactions, but we have simply not had an adequate or fair opportunity to deal with this.”
Mr Bhana made a formal application for a stand-down to prepare an application for postponement because of the volume and late disclosure of evidence documents.
“I want to deal with all of this formally in an application, and I would like to stand down to bring that application.”
Mr Bhana clarified that the defence does not intend to refer to the hundreds of pages of spreadsheets in cross-examination but only an infographic summary and line item spreadsheet already given to Mr Carrim's team.
“We will not refer to a single one of those pages. We have made that clear to Mr Carrim's team.... What we sent them electronically ... is really the only sensible ...”
Mr Carrim first disclosed seeing Medicare bank statements over a period in 2024 only in testimony yesterday, though this should have been included in his statement provided earlier.
“Yesterday in evidence, Mr Carrim told us for the first time that he had had sight of Medicare bank statements over a period in 2024. This was material that should have been put in a statement, which in turn ought to have been furnished Friday, not last week, but the week before. It was not put in the statement, which was furnished five days late on Wednesday. So, we hear this for the first time yesterday.”
The infographic summarizes payments from municipalities to companies owned by Mr Carrim, totalling about R336 million.
“the infographics provides a summary of payments from municipalities in the area in respect of which Mr Carrim is the ANC treasurer, to companies owned by Mr Carrim. It gives a breakdown of where the 300, and I think it is R336 million or R332 million that these municipalities have paid to Mr Carrim, where it comes from.”
The evidence leader, while reviewing Medicare bank statements on 10 March 2026, discovered two substantial payments from Tasmica Construction into Medicare 24 not mentioned by Mr Carrim.
“While I was looking for that purpose, I stumbled across the fact that there were two substantial payments from Tasmica Construction, another company of Mr Carrim, into Medicare 24, which he did not mention in his statement.”
Bank statements received from FNB include a list of all contras for the entire Medicare 24 account, comprising thousands of transactions, and no documents were withheld.
“What we receive from FNB when we get bank statements from FNB is a list of all the contras. So we have contras for the entire Medicare 24 account. Thousands and thousands of transactions. We do not search on that set of transactions for Tasmica Construction unless we have reason to search for Tasmica Construction. This morning I had reason to search for Tasmica Construction.”
Payments of 1 million on 27 June 2024 and 1.12 million on October 2024 were not disclosed in a statement, despite being evident in bank transactions on Medicare 24.
“The one payment is a payment of 1 million on the 27th of June 024. The second payment is a payment of 1.12 million on October 2024. In his statement he did not disclose these payments. Third of all, in his statement he did not disclose the fact that he had sight of the bank transactions on Medicare 24.”
There is a suggestion that the contras spreadsheet was withheld, but it was actually created and provided between 05:00 and 06:00 on the morning of 10 March 2026 and given to the other party within 15 minutes.
“They make the suggestion that we have had that document and withheld it from them. That is a very irresponsible suggestion. ... I searched for Tasmica Construction and identified the two entries that were provided to them this morning. I then copied those two entries into a separate spreadsheet this morning sometime between 05:00 and 06:00 and gave it to them. Nothing has been withheld from them. They received that spreadsheet within 15 minutes of its creation.”
The infographic used is someone else's creation and a summary, so it is not satisfactory to rely on it without examining the source documents.
“As our learned friend himself accepts, the infographic is somebody else's creation of a summary. He appreciates that we needed the source documents, yet he put up the infographic ... So it is no satisfactory answer to say we will not rely on anyone of these documents. You are relying on the infogram which is the reconstruction or summary of what is contained in here. We are entitled to check that.”
The commission leaders continuously point fingers at Mr Carrim and his legal team for failings when evidence leaders are exposed.
“The attitude adopted by the commission leaders is continuously to point fingers to Mr Carrim and his legal team when failings on the part of those evidence leaders are exposed.”
The legal team requested an itemised list of exact documents intended to be relied on for questioning and confirmed no other documents outside that scope would be relied on; failure to provide such information might force a postponement application.
“We said we did not want to apply for a postponement, but if documents and information was going to be withheld, we would be forced to do so ... We confirm a itemised list of the exact documents upon which you intend to rely for the purpose of questioning our client ... Confirmation that no documents or information falling outside the scope of those identified documents will be relied upon ... That is the Friday bundle ... We were hardly required to consider or take instructions on Tasmica.”
The 'finger pointing' by the opposing party regarding Tasmica is habitual and without basis, as Tasmica was not mentioned in the December 10 Notice which was the primary notice to address relationships with entities.
“In relation to the issue of Tasmica, our learned friend in his finger pointing ... suggests that this should have been covered in the statement. ... You will not find any mention of Tasmica. So we were hardly required to consider or take instructions on Tasmica.”
The commission's ongoing drip feeding of documents has been complained about as it causes unfairness and is prejudicial, especially given timing constraints such as religious commitments.
“The Commission's drip feeding of documents which we have complained about has continued right until this morning. ... Witnesses cannot be expected to deal with things on the roof or, in our respectful submission, for things to be withheld whether willingly or unknowingly or unwittingly, and then for us to take instructions on the turn at a very difficult time when people are not readily available at night due to religious commitments ... This is highly prejudicial to us and we do wish to bring a formal application.”
The witness declined to mention that one of his companies paid over R2,000,000 to Medicare Tshwane District, despite being specifically asked to furnish a statement on the nature and extent of his relationship with Medicare Tshwane District.
“He declined to mention that one of his companies paid over R 2 0 0 0 0 0 to Medicare Tshwane District”
The witness and his legal team need to consult but do not need days to do so; an hour would be reasonable before proceeding.
“The witness and his legal team now need time to consult, but they do not need time. They do not need days to consult. They can stand down, consult for a reasonable period, maybe an hour, and then we are ready to run”
The witness did not disclose payments aggregating to 2.12 million into Medicare Tshwane District when specifically instructed to furnish a statement about the nature and extent of his relationship with Medicare Tshwane District.
“the witness did not disclose payments aggregating to 2 . 1 2 m i l l i o n i n t o Medicare Tshwane District when he was specifically instructed to furnish a statement about the nature and extent of his relationship with Medicare Tshwane District”
The notice requiring the witness to personally provide a statement asked for the nature of his relationship with several individuals but does not mention dealings of his companies with Medicare or Tasmica.
“The notice at the relevant paragraphs asks Mr Suleiman Carrim personally to provide a statement ... There is no mention here of dealings of his many companies with anyone, let alone with Medicare”
The witness is accused of withholding information that is relevant to the commission's inquiry about the relationship with Medicare that he knows but chooses to withhold.
“The witness knows something else, and he chooses to hold it back”
The witness is not coming to assist the Commission and is seen as playing catch me if you can while the Commission seeks to find out facts about the relationship with Medicare.
“To me, is not a witness who is coming to assist the Commission. It is catch me if you can”
It is unfair criticism that the witness should have dealt with matters not stipulated in the summons or notice in the statement; the witness's attention was not directed to those matters and the transactions go back several years.
“My submission to you is that that is an incorrect view. ... It is unfair for you to make the judgment now that he chose to hold back documents when his attention was not directed to that”
Mr Carrim treats his companies interchangeably despite them being legally distinct, with funds supposedly coming from Tameez rather than Ziggy, and repayments also made to Tameez, suggesting a blurred distinction in dealing with his entities.
“Mr Carrim himself seems to treat his companies basically either as the same entity as it were...It was Ziggy, but I think the money did not come from Ziggy. Yes, some of it came from Tameez. And also I think the payment back, was it not to Tameez as well? Even the payment was not to Ziggy but to Tameez...So it seems highly technical...Tameez is separate from Ziggy, Ziggy is separate from Tameez, and Tameez, or rather both of them are separate from Tasmica.”
Advocate Bhana contends that the criticism of Mr Carrim deliberately withholding information from his statement is unfounded, although he acknowledges that Mr Carrim does not always maintain strict distinctions between his entities.
“All we are suggesting is that the criticism that he deliberately withheld information from his statement is not one that can be made. And if that is going to be advanced...It is all the more reason why we need time to deal with this carefully and properly...You are going to draw inferences...from aspects which we say you should not...we do not suggest that he is not entitled to be questioned. Your point is correct that he does not always keep a strict distinction...”
Advocate Bhana states that Mr Carrim's evidence cannot be completed today and a stand-down would take up substantial time, suggesting at least two hours would be needed to prepare properly.
“It is clear his evidence cannot be completed today. It is clear that with a stand-down, we in any case are going to eat up into a substantial portion of today...I think at least two hours and I will come back to you if I need more time...I am going to do this carefully and I am going to take proper time to do so.”
Advocate Bhana apologized for misunderstanding the Chairperson's position on adjournment and withdrawing any suggestion of prejudgment.
“Yes, if I misunderstood it, then I tender an apology...Thank you. And you apologize for what you said, because you basically suggested impropriety on my part, that I have prejudged issues whilst the matter is being debated. Are you tendering an apology for that?”
Mr Chaskalson requested a series of documents from Mr Carrim related to agreements and account details concerning his business dealings.
“We asked at the end of the hearing yesterday for a series of documents from Mr Carrim. The one was a two-page agreement with Mr Maumela in relation to the mining venture. The one was a draft agreement that Ziggy had with Medicare 24. Then there were the details of the accounts and to instruct that Mr Matlala should pay Tameez not Ziggy. And lastly, we wanted to hear back from him after he consulted with his attorneys in relation to accessing his WhatsApps from 2024-2025 with Mr Mogotsian and Mr Matlala.”
Mr Carrim's offices in Mafikeng are currently closed due to threats, and his legal team is working remotely until the threats subside.
“At the moment my offices are closed because of the threats. So, I have those documents. Once those threats just subside, my office is working remotely now. My people are working remotely.”
Mr Carrim was not initially informed that Mr Maumela was a business associate of Mr Matlala, despite reading articles about the allegations involving them.
“At that point he did not disclose that to me ... I saw articles but there was no direct link between them ... all you knew is what you had read in the press about them.”
There was an arrangement where Mr Matlala needed to pay Mr Maumela money; the exact nature of the money (borrowed or owed) is unclear.
“Mr Matlala, he asked to borrow money from Mr Maumela. I do not know what it was exactly. But according to him, Mr Matlala needed to pay him. Either money is owed or money is borrowed.”
Mr Carrim repeatedly stated he did not know why Mr Matlala sent screenshots and visitor entrance codes to Zimbali Estate.
“No, I do not know why he was sending Mr Maumela my screenshots... I do not know why he was sending them to Zimbali... I have no idea why these were sent.”
Mr Matlala sent WhatsApp messages to Mr Maumela about voice calls and entry codes to Zimbali Estate, indicating knowledge of a meeting with General Cele, but Mr Carrim did not know about this meeting.
“Mr Matlala WhatsApp'd Mr Maumela your exchanges, saying that you would call at 12, it seems that they knew that Mr Matlala was likely to be meeting with General Cele at the time. I knew nothing about this meeting.”
Mr Maumela put pressure on Mr Carrim to pay another R13 million to him to get good standing for the next payment.
“in order for him to make me or force me to pay, he said to me, there is another R13 million going to be paid. So please, if you can pay this... and I will see you good on the next payment.”
Mr Matlala promised Mr Carrim that more money was coming to reimburse payments made to Mr Maumela, which was used to convince Mr Carrim to comply despite his suspicions.
“Look, there is another payment coming in of 13 million. I will see you good there. So please just do this for me.”
Mr Maumela was paid R500 and R250 as part of a payment scheme under pressure from Mr Matlala, and Mr Carrim was scared to not comply due to press reports and safety concerns.
“I paid Mr Maumela the 500 and the 250 principally because you were scared not to comply with what Mr Matlala was telling you to do? Yes, I was counsel.”
Mr Carrim agreed to financially assist the Brown-Mogotsi Foundation Interdict because he wanted North West money to stay in the North West.
“Brown approached me for financial assistance regarding litigation to review and set aside a tender that was prejudicing the people of the North west....I am from the North west and this is a matter I cared deeply about.”
Payments related to the Brown-Mogotsi Foundation Interdict were made to Gotlhe Specialists, who were related to the principal officer's wife, rather than directly to the Foundation, because the Foundation did not have a bank account.
“Brown-Mogotsi Foundation did not have a bank account... He then asked me to please put these funds into Gotlhe Specialists and that he would transfer them to the attorneys.”