The Disputed Meeting with General Mkhwanazi

The inquiry re-examined a key paragraph from earlier proceedings detailing a meeting between Matlala and General Mkhwanazi. According to statements attributed to Mkhwanazi, Matlala had provided specific details regarding Steve Matsumi, including his residential address, alongside claims about how General Sibiya was collecting money in Gauteng.

Under questioning, Matlala repeatedly disputed this sequence of events. He maintained that he did not initiate the topic or volunteer names. Instead, Matlala testified that General Mkhwanazi introduced the topic by asking whether he knew of anyone in Gauteng from whom General Sibiya was collecting money, followed specifically by a direct question about Steve Matsumi.

When pushed to clarify his exact response to Mkhwanazi's initial query about collections in Gauteng, Matlala acknowledged answering in the affirmative, but insisted he did not provide a list of names to Mkhwanazi.

Refusal to Answer and Self-Incrimination Concerns

A central point of friction during the proceedings was Matlala’s persistent refusal to answer direct questions regarding who was making payments to General Sibiya or whether Steve Matsumi was personally paying him.

Matlala repeatedly stated that he did not want to answer, citing concerns over his ongoing criminal trial and his intention to challenge the circumstances surrounding his arrest. He argued that disclosing details about his interactions with General Mkhwanazi would compromise his legal defence strategy in court.

Commissioners explicitly challenged Matlala's position, pointing out that:

• He had already testified that he personally made no payments to General Sibiya.
• Implicating or naming third parties would not logically self-incriminate him on his current charges.
• The legal privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to withholding information simply to preserve a future courtroom strategy.

Despite commissioners noting that his refusal appeared aimed at protecting third parties rather than preventing self-incrimination, Matlala maintained that disclosing the details would leave him with "nothing to present in court" regarding how his arrest came about.
Clarification on the Alleged "Middleman"

After extensive pushback from the panel, Matlala clarified his position regarding the alleged cash collections. He stated under oath that he had no direct knowledge of Steve Matsumi paying General Sibiya, nor did he possess personal first-hand knowledge of direct payments.

Instead, Matlala testified that his information came from a third party. Upon further questioning to clarify the chain of events, Matlala named Sergeant Khosi, describing him as an intermediary or middleman who had mentioned collecting money. However, Matlala maintained that he did not know the original source of the funds being passed through Sergeant Khosi to General Sibiya.
Contradictions Over the Warrant and Arrest Strategy

The inquiry also touched upon the origin of Matlala’s attempted murder charge and how it intersected with his April 2024 meeting with General Mkhwanazi.

While General Mkhwanazi’s previous statements indicated that Matlala had explicitly brought up the Gauteng investigation into the attempted murder of his ex-girlfriend during their meeting, Matlala denied this. Matlala claimed he was unaware of an active warrant against him at the time of the meeting, asserting that Mkhwanazi informed him that a warrant had only been signed by a prosecutor, not yet by a magistrate.

Matlala insisted that had he known an active, fully signed warrant existed at that time, he would have handed himself over to the police rather than discussing the matter informally.

The evidence and conflicting accounts regarding the April 2024 meeting remain a critical focus for the commission as it continues to evaluate the credibility of the statements provided.