Procedural drama unfolded during a commission hearing involving Mr Matlala when his legal representative raised the sudden possibility of the entire legal team walking away from the matter. The tense exchange between counsel and the commission highlighted the growing friction over scheduling requests, strict procedural timelines, and communication breakdowns between legal representatives and their client.

The Trigger: A Request for Additional Time

The threat to withdraw arose during a debate regarding whether the commission would grant Mr Matlala’s legal team extra time to prepare. Addressing the chairperson, lead counsel outlined a hypothetical scenario: if the commission ruled against granting an extension and ordered proceedings to continue immediately, the legal team’s option would be to go off the record.

Counsel made it clear that if forced to proceed without the requested preparation time, the legal team would not continue representing Mr Matlala. This potential withdrawal was presented as an alternative to arguing the matter unprepared, creating a direct ultimatum between securing an adjournment or leaving the client without representation.

Confusion Over the Mandate: Who Was Withdrawing?

As the discussion progressed, the commission sought clarity on what going "off the record" actually meant in practice and who it encompassed. The exchange revealed several critical details regarding the composition and authority of the legal team:

• Scope of the Withdrawal: Counsel confirmed that going off the record meant formal withdrawal. adding that the withdrawal was meant to include the entire legal team present, including the advocates.
  
  
• Omission of Additional Attorneys: Counsel admitted on record to having just realized that another attorney, Mr Malule, and his firm were still part of the broader legal team.

Lack of Prior Consultation: Because Mr Malule was not present in the room, counsel acknowledged that he had not commented on the decision, requiring further engagement with him before confirming his firm's stance.

To confirm the position of the attorneys present, the commission called Mr Baloy from Baloyi Attorneys to the microphone. Mr Baloy explicitly confirmed counsel's submission, stating that his firm would also withdraw as attorneys of record if the commission decided to proceed immediately.

The Turnaround: Mr Matlala Left in the Dark

Mr Matlala revealed that he was completely unaware of the announcement being made on his behalf. He explained that while various options had been discussed previously, he had not been given enough time during the lunch break to finalize his thoughts or reach a decision. He stated clearly to the commission that he was "in the dark" and had not agreed to the strategy announced by his counsel.

This revelation that the client had not authorized the withdrawal declaration prompted severe criticism from the panel. A commissioner labeled the sequence of events "deeply problematic," pointing out that counsel had explicitly claimed to be acting on direct client instructions.

The commission reminded the legal team of key legal principles governing representation:

• Lawyer Autonomy vs. Client Instructions: The withdrawal of legal representation is ultimately a decision taken by the legal representatives themselves based on professional boundaries, rather than a mere instruction dictated by a client.
  
  
• Professional Integrity: Presenting an unconfirmed client stance to a judicial panel as a definitive instruction misleads the proceedings and undermines the record.

Following the chairperson's formal ruling to proceed with hearing Mr Matlala’s application, counsel requested a stand-down to consult with Mr Matlala and resolve the internal misunderstanding. The commission ultimately granted an adjournment for the scheduled lunch break, leaving the legal team to clarify their mandate and determine whether they would officially remain on brief.