Quick Read
- The Madlanga Commission rejected Suleiman Carrim’s application to testify in-camera despite his claims of receiving death threats.
- Evidence leaders opposed the request, offering state protection instead of private testimony to ensure transparency.
- Carrim is under scrutiny for alleged involvement in a R360 million police tender corruption scandal.
PRETORIA (Azat TV) – The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has officially denied a request by controversial North West businessman and ANC backer Suleiman Carrim to testify in-camera. Chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga delivered the ruling on Monday morning, effectively forcing the businessman to provide his testimony in a public forum.
Legal Battle Over Suleiman Carrim Testimony
Carrim’s legal representatives, led by Advocate Kameel Premhid, had filed an application last Friday seeking to move the testimony behind closed doors. The defense argued that Carrim had been subject to surveillance and had received anonymous death threats targeting himself, his family, and his business interests. Despite these claims, the commission’s evidence leaders formally opposed the motion, offering instead to provide official state protection should Carrim deem it necessary.
Justice Madlanga’s decision comes after a series of procedural delays that have frustrated the commission. During the proceedings, the chairperson explicitly noted that Carrim could not dictate the rules of the inquiry. The businessman has previously attempted to evade testifying by unsuccessfully challenging his subpoena in court.
Implications of the Madlanga Commission Ruling
The commission is currently investigating allegations of widespread corruption, specifically focusing on claims that Carrim meddled in confidential police operations and received kickbacks from a R360 million South African Police Service (SAPS) tender awarded to suspected crime boss Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala. Following the announcement of the ruling, Carrim’s legal team appeared surprised, indicating that the businessman was waiting at a separate location and would need to be transported to the venue to begin his testimony.
In a final attempt to manage the logistics of the appearance, Premhid requested that the commission allow for frequent comfort breaks during the session, suggesting intervals ranging from 45 minutes to an hour and a half. The commission has taken this request under advisement as it prepares to move forward with the high-stakes testimony.
The rejection of Carrim’s request underscores the commission’s commitment to transparency in the face of attempts to circumvent public scrutiny, signaling a shift toward strict adherence to procedural mandates as the inquiry approaches its final stages of evidence gathering.