Businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala alleges in a draft affidavit that his former lawyer, advocate Bronwynne Forbay, coached him on how to answer questions about former deputy police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya during his appearance before Parliament’s ad hoc committee.
Matlala claims Forbay told him to withhold details about his relationship with Sibiya and directed him to give an account of a visit to Sibiya’s home that he says was untrue. Forbay has rejected the allegations.
The claims have not been independently established. The document is described as a draft affidavit, and it does not prove that the alleged conversations took place or that Matlala’s parliamentary evidence was improperly influenced.
“The evidence that I gave before the Ad-Hoc Committee in relation to Lieutenant General Shadrack Sibiya (Sibiya) of the SAPS was coerced by Mr Forbay,” Matlala alleges.
He says Forbay instructed him not to disclose the full extent of his relationship with Sibiya. The draft affidavit also claims Matlala was told that Sibiya had threatened to kill his family if he revealed what he knew.
The material does not independently establish that Sibiya made such a threat, and it does not include a response from him to that specific allegation.
Matlala further alleges that Forbay spoke to Sibiya during breaks in the committee proceedings and that those conversations shaped how he was told to respond.
“During adjournments at the Ad-Hoc Committee, Mr Forbay (Forbay) would call Sibiya in front of me, and Sibiya would tell him what I am going to be asked and Forbay through Sibiya would direct me how to answer those questions,” the affidavit states.
Matlala says these alleged exchanges led him to suspect that Sibiya was in contact with one or more members of the parliamentary committee. The passages cited do not identify any committee member, or independently establish that anyone on the committee disclosed questions improperly.
Dispute about visit to Sibiya’s home
One example in the draft affidavit concerns questions about whether Matlala had visited Sibiya’s home.
Matlala alleges that he was first instructed to deny visiting the residence, but was later told to say he had been there once to collect his wife. The draft affidavit states that he was told to say he had gone there “once only to pick up my wife”.
Matlala disputes that account, alleging that it “was not true”. The document does not establish what was said during the alleged discussions or whether Matlala’s testimony was deliberately changed.
Forbay said Matlala’s statement was prepared in conjunction with the evidence leaders, and that the initial consultations and drafting formed part of that engagement. He also referred to his professional obligations, including confidentiality and legal professional privilege.
“We remain bound by our professional duties of confidentiality and legal professional privilege. Those duties limit what we can properly disclose about our interactions with Mr Matlala. They do not, however, prevent us from rejecting allegations that cast an unwarranted shadow over the integrity of his former legal representative,” he said.
Forbay said his decision not to discuss privileged information should not be treated as acceptance of Matlala’s claims. He described the allegations as “false, unfounded and rejected in the strongest possible terms”.
Matlala also claims Sibiya influenced Forbay’s appointment as his lawyer. In the draft affidavit, he says: “Forbay in my view was protecting Sibiya at all costs and I decided to terminate his appointment as my legal representative.”
That is Matlala’s description of Forbay’s conduct; the document does not independently establish that Forbay acted in Sibiya’s interests or failed to represent Matlala properly. Matlala also claims he had not paid Forbay and later appointed Hlawu Maluleke Attorneys. The material cited does not establish the basis for those claims.
Claims about seized phones
The draft affidavit also refers to two phones police seized when Matlala was arrested: an iPhone 16 Pro Max and an iPhone 15.
Matlala alleges that police returned the phones but they remained with Forbay after his legal representation ended. He says attempts to retrieve them were unsuccessful and claims Forbay later told him the iPhone 16 Pro Max had been stolen from his briefcase at the Krugersdorp Magistrates’ Court.
The draft affidavit does not establish whether the phones remained in Forbay’s possession, whether the alleged theft occurred or whether either device contained information relevant to Matlala’s committee testimony.
Matlala also alleges that his wife warned him before his appearance that she had received threats against him and his family if he mentioned Sibiya. The document does not independently verify that claim.
The allegations appear in a broader account by Matlala concerning his dealings with senior police officials, alleged payments and efforts to secure a state-witness arrangement. Each claim requires separate verification and should not be treated as established simply because it appears in the draft affidavit.
The Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) declined to comment on the leaked documents. Its spokesperson, Henry Mamothame, said the plea and sentence agreement between IDAC and Matlala had become null and void after Matlala withdrew from the deal.
“IDAC cannot comment on leaked documents. The plea and sentence agreement between IDAC and Vusimuzi Matlala became null and void upon his withdrawal from the deal,” Mamothame said.
“Furthermore, IDAC does not comment on subjects of investigations to protect the integrity of its work and those involved,” he said.