Businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala has accused investigators from the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption of pressuring him for information about three senior police generals.
Testifying before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, Matlala alleged that investigators told him they were not primarily interested in prosecuting him but wanted to use his arrest to reach the people they were pursuing.
“Listen, we’re not actually after you, but we need to arrest you so that we can get to the people that we want to pursue,” Matlala claimed the investigators told him.
He said the officials named National Police Commissioner General Fannie Masemola, KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi and Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo as the people they wanted to investigate.
The allegations were made while the commission examined a signed Section 204 statement that Matlala gave during negotiations over a proposed plea-and-sentence agreement.
That agreement later collapsed.
Matlala alleges investigators sought information
Matlala told the commission that IDAC officials took him from prison for several meetings and interviews.
He said some of the meetings happened without his lawyers being informed.
He alleged that investigators took him to the Sheraton Hotel in Pretoria and later, at about 2am, to a McDonald’s near Kgosi Mampuru II prison.
At the fast-food restaurant, he said, investigators pressed him for information about the three generals.
They also allegedly asked him to telephone Major-General Lesetja Senona, the former head of the KwaZulu-Natal Hawks.
Matlala said he made the call but did not obtain information that could assist the investigators.
He said he deliberately used a normal telephone call rather than WhatsApp because he wanted the conversation to be capable of independent verification.
According to his testimony, Senona did not trust that the person on the phone was Matlala and said he did not know what Matlala was talking about.
Matlala was then taken back to prison.
He also alleged that investigators later removed him from custody again without notifying his legal representatives and took him to their offices.
Dispute over Section 204 statement
The commission’s questioning followed a ruling by chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga that Matlala could be questioned about the signed Section 204 statement.
The statement was prepared during negotiations linked to the failed plea-and-sentence agreement.
Matlala alleged that IDAC investigator Dylan Perumal typed the document and inserted information that he had not supplied.
He also said that information he wanted recorded was left out.
He told the commission that he signed three or four versions of the statement on different occasions.
Some of the versions, he claimed, contained exaggerated or untrue passages.
“Some statements are exaggerated,” he said.
Matlala acknowledged that his signature and initials appeared on the document. He nevertheless claimed that he signed it without reading it properly and that the meaning and consequences of Section 204 had not been explained to him.
He also said he was not placed under oath when he signed the statement.
“I was compelled to do that,” Matlala said.
His evidence leaders are expected to continue testing the differences between his oral testimony and the contents of the statement.
Alleged threats and witness protection offer
Matlala alleged that investigators warned him that his criminal trial could take five years.
He said they threatened to add charges if he refused to co-operate.
He claimed that investigators offered him the prospect of spending the period in witness protection with his family instead of remaining in prison while awaiting trial.
His lawyer, Advocate Annelene van der Heever, separately alleged that Matlala had been promised he would not have to testify before the commission.
She said the claim could be confirmed under oath if necessary.
Matlala said he rejected the plea agreement after the court proposed a 12-year prison sentence.
His criminal proceedings include a case linked to the Medicare24 contract with the South African Police Service.
The details of any possible witness-protection arrangement, including who allegedly made the offer and whether it was authorised, remain matters for the commission and relevant investigators to examine.
No finding has been made that IDAC officials acted unlawfully.
The allegations remain contested evidence before the commission and may be tested through further questioning and other evidence.
Sibiya allegations also examined
The commission also examined sections of the statement dealing with former deputy national police commissioner Lieutenant-General Shadrack Sibiya and Matlala’s appearance before Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee in November 2025.
The statement alleged that former lawyer Bronwynne Forbay instructed Matlala on what to say about Sibiya.
It also alleged that Sibiya arranged Forbay’s appointment.
Matlala disputed parts of that account.
He told the commission that his wife had engaged Forbay.
He also challenged a passage stating that he had not paid the lawyer, saying he paid R50 000 before appearing before Parliament.
When asked whether Forbay coached his parliamentary testimony, Matlala declined to confirm parts of the statement.
He said he was concerned that answering could expose him to a possible perjury allegation.
He nevertheless said that not all of his evidence before the parliamentary committee had been coerced.
Matlala also corrected a passage stating that he had visited Sibiya’s residence several times.
He said he had been there once.
He confirmed that he saved Sibiya’s number under the name “Sotobe”, but denied regularly communicating with him, deleting messages at his instruction or being told to protect him at all costs.
Another passage stated that Matlala’s wife had told him Sibiya threatened her before Matlala appeared before Parliament.
Matlala did not dispute that passage but refused to answer further questions about the alleged threats.
“I do not want to put someone’s life at risk,” he said.
Defence seeks review of ruling
Earlier in the proceedings, Van der Heever raised security concerns and asked for evidence about the statement to be heard behind closed doors.
Matlala later indicated that he was prepared to continue in public.
His lawyer also said the defence intended to seek an urgent High Court review of Madlanga’s ruling allowing the commission to question Matlala about the statement.
Evidence leader Advocate Mahlape Sello SC argued that the defence had known for weeks that the commission intended to rely on the document.
Madlanga ruled that protections connected to a failed plea agreement in criminal proceedings did not prevent the commission from considering the statement.
He refused to suspend the hearing in the absence of a court order.
“We will proceed,” Madlanga said.
The ruling allowed the commission to examine the contents of the statement while preserving Matlala’s right to challenge the document and raise concerns about how it was obtained.
Commission tests competing versions
The commission is now examining two competing accounts of how Matlala’s statement came into existence.
The statement contains allegations about senior police officials, legal representatives, parliamentary evidence and the SAPS health tender.
Matlala says investigators drafted portions of the document, included material he did not provide and placed pressure on him to sign it.
The investigators’ alleged purpose, according to Matlala, was to obtain information about senior police figures rather than simply to build a case against him.
The contents of the statement and the circumstances surrounding its preparation will be weighed against Matlala’s oral testimony, consultation records and any evidence from the investigators involved.
The commission may also examine prison movement records, legal correspondence, call data and records from the meetings Matlala described.
Those records could help establish when he was taken from prison, who accompanied him and whether his lawyers were notified.
Medicare24 case remains part of background
Matlala’s testimony forms part of a wider commission investigation into alleged corruption and criminal influence within the police and criminal justice system.
His criminal case includes allegations linked to the Medicare24 contract with SAPS.
The commission has previously questioned Matlala about the tender, alleged payments and his relationships with senior police officials.
He has refused to answer some questions by relying on his right against self-incrimination.
Those questions include alleged payments connected to the SAPS healthcare tender and allegations that money was paid to secure or protect the contract.
Matlala has also disputed claims that Sibiya received money or other benefits from tender proceeds.
The commission is not a criminal court and cannot convict Matlala or any of the officials named in his evidence.
Its role is to gather evidence, test allegations and make findings or recommendations within its terms of reference.
Any criminal prosecution arising from the evidence would be dealt with through the ordinary criminal justice process.
What happens next
Matlala is expected to face further questioning about contradictions between his oral evidence and the Section 204 statement.
Evidence leaders are likely to continue asking about the alleged meetings with IDAC investigators, the proposed plea agreement, the claimed witness-protection offer and the allegations involving senior police officials.
The commission may also hear evidence about the investigators who allegedly drafted or handled the statement.
That evidence will be important in determining whether Matlala’s account is supported by independent records or challenged by other witnesses.
The High Court review threatened by Matlala’s legal team could also affect the timetable if an urgent application is brought and granted.
For now, Madlanga’s ruling remains in force and the commission has continued with the questioning.
Matlala’s allegations have not been tested to a final finding, and the senior police generals named in his testimony have not been found guilty of wrongdoing in these proceedings.
The commission will continue examining whether the statement was voluntarily and properly obtained, whether the investigators acted within their powers and whether the evidence points to misconduct or criminal conduct by any person involved.