EXPLAINER | Why Matlala asked for a postponement at Madlanga

Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala cited section 35 of the constitution when applying for his testimony to be postponed at the Madlanga commission of inquiry on Wednesday.

Section 35 guarantees arrested, detained and accused people the right to a fair trial, which includes the absolute right to remain silent and to not be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence or make a confession.

Matlala appeared at the commission heavily guarded and with his legal team. On the commencement of proceedings, his lawyer Annalene van den Heever applied for a postponement.

This is what you need to know about his application:

According to Van den Heever, they needed a postponement because Matlala has a criminal trial to attend on Monday. The matter relates to the attempted murder of his former girlfriend Tebogo Thobejane.

The actress was with a friend when their car was shot at. While Thobejane sustained minor injuries, the friend had serious spinal injuries.

“We believe he has the constitutional right to attend this trial and be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, together with the other constitutional rights that we’ve dealt with in this particular affidavit.”

Another reason Van den Heever put forward was that she was awaiting Investigative Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) material on the now-collapsed plea agreement deal Matlala had with the state.

She said that she was brought in at a later stage for the plea deal.

“The difficulty that we find ourselves in, and this is also the issue that prevented us from actually dealing with any affidavit beforehand, is that [my] client and I were not party to that particular agreement,” she said.

“I only came in later [for the plea deal], through a different legal representative with Idac. The gentleman that should be named here was part of that [and] entered into a 105A plea agreement.

“That’s when I got briefed to come back in because there were very material and important issues that were not raised in the 105A that we believe would have materially influenced, potentially, the outcome of such an agreement.”

Commission chair Mbuyiseli Madlanga asked if Matlala was of the view that he would not testify as long as there was a criminal trial ongoing.

Van den Heever referred to retired justice Chris Jafta’s minority judgment, which held that Jacob Zuma should not have been directly imprisoned without a criminal trial. Instead, Jafta proposed that the minister of police take Zuma into custody to compel his compliance and bring him before the court within three days.

Madlanga also asked Van den Heever why they could not proceed to hear matters that did not involve his upcoming criminal trial.

“Let’s address our minds to issues on which there is no question regarding them being heard by the commission. That is what my focus is on and on the basis about the plea deal and its relevance to my question,” he said.

Van den Heever said the application was important because at this point they could not distinguish between questions that could and those that could not be answered.

After a heated exchange, an order was handed down by Madlanga.

He ruled that Matlala’s testimony be postponed to September 1 and that he must file a sworn affidavit not later than July 29.

Sowetan