Corruption-accused Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala intends to take the Madlanga commission to court to block the inquiry from questioning him on a statement he submitted as part of his now collapsed plea deal process in a criminal trial, which contains some self-incriminating evidence.
Commission chair justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga on Monday rejected arguments from Matlala’s representative, advocate Annelene van den Heever, that a statement provided by Matlala to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption in a plea deal process cannot be used by the commission.
In July Matlala withdrew from the plea deal in a R228m tender scandal case after having submitted a statement during the plea deal negotiations.
The Criminal Procedure Act provides that after a plea deal collapses and a trial starts afresh, the agreement shall be null and void, and no regard shall be had to any negotiations which preceded the entering into the agreement or any record of the agreement, unless the accused consents to the recording of all or certain admissions made by him.
Van den Heever argued that a statement made by Matlala that was provided to the commission by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) legally should never have been before it and should not be considered.
Madlanga in his rejection said the law bars a criminal court from taking into consideration the plea agreements when a trial starts afresh, but that does not apply to the commission.
“I take the view that what section 105(A)10 relates to is criminal proceedings. It does not relate to proceedings of a commission of inquiry,” Madlanga said.
“The nullity of the statement that is at issue does not apply to a situation that is outside of the criminal proceedings that the introductory part of the section refers to. That is, criminal proceedings that are contemplated to have started. Therefore, I reject the submissions made by Mr Matlala’s legal representative that the section 204 (Criminal Procedure Act) statement cannot be used in these proceedings.”
Matlala’s legal team indicated that they intend to take the ruling on review on an urgent basis.
“I hold instructions to at this stage take the ruling by the commission on review. This is an extremely important issue that we believe will have a profound impact not only on our client but also on the legal process as a whole,” Van den Heever said.
The commission’s ruling would lead to accused persons “never entering” plea agreements with the state, in that certain information provided during plea negotiations would be provided to commissions by the NPA and not protected as promised, she argued.
She asked the commission to proceed with hearing Matlala’s evidence in camera, but the request was not made in the form of an application.
“He will not answer any questions unless there is a situation whereby this, the issue of the content of that statement, at some point is done in camera with strict security relating to who can hear and who can’t hear, and if necessary, we will then make a separate application to deal with that issue because of threats to my client’s life and to those of his family,” she said.
The hearings continue.
Business Day
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.