Businessperson and ANC member Suleiman Carrim’s urgent application to interdict the Madlanga commission from subpoenaing him to testify seeks to “permanently excuse” him from facing the questions, the commission’s lawyer, Ngwako Maenetje, argued on Tuesday.
Maenetje made the argument before the high court in Johannesburg, pushing back against Carrim’s application seeking to block the commission from calling him to file a written statement or subpoenaing him.
Carrim wants the interdict pending a review application in which he challenges the decision to call him as a witness.
His representative, advocate Kameel Premhid, argued the interdict is important to ensure Carrim’s rights to a fair trial are protected.
The litigation is based on an alleged breach of rules by the commission investigating allegations of criminal infiltration in the justice cluster.
Carrim was linked to the commission’s probe through evidence that attempted murder accused Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s paid him R1.5m from proceeds of a failed R360m South African Police Service (SAPS) tender.
The case is pinned on rule 3.5 which reads: “If the commission’s legal team intends to present to the commission a witness whose evidence implicates another person, it must … notify that person in writing within a reasonable time before the witness gives evidence (publicly or in camera) or after the witness has given evidence if prior notice is not feasible, depending on what is reasonable and fair in the circumstances.”
Premhid argued that the commission on October 29 2025 sent Carrim a notice to file a statement but had neither notified him of prior evidence nor provided details about who implicated him or about the allegations or attached evidence presented.
The court papers show the commission sent documents to Carrim’s attorney in November and December after requests, but further requests were made.
“Rule 3.5 and its purpose is simply to guarantee fair trial rights of an implicated person. Those rights have been breached by the commission in their failure to [comply] with their own rule,” Premhid argued, adding that once an unlawful process has occurred, irreparable harm is permanent and it cannot be remedied after the fact.
The commission’s panel comprising its chair, retired Constitutional Court justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, and advocates Sandile Khumalo and Sesi Baloyi have considered complaints of procedural unfairness at the commission. Carrim’s case is the first to be decided by a court.
Premhid argued his client could only receive the relief he sought from the high court, not at the commission.
“The commission is not the forum to remedy the prejudice,” he said.
“There is a legitimate basis on which a cogent legal case has been made to interdict the implementation of the subpoena. When regard is had on the role of rule 3.5, your ladyship will consider the legality of the arguments stripped from all the evocative language about evading public accountability and so on,” he argued.
Judge Denise Fisher quizzed Premhid on why Carrim did not initiate the application, knowing for three months the commission intended to subpoena him but “waited until the procedure was at its death”.
Premhid said Carrim’s attorney wanted to address the “defects” in the procedure and resolve the issue but was left with no choice but to turn to the court when the procedural machinery “started to bite.”
“It is not fair to suggest my client just sat on his hands [for three months].”
In his rebuttal, Maenetje argued the case was moot because the interdict sought to block the issuing of a subpoena was initiated after the subpoena was issued on January 23 and there was no prayer seeking to overturn it.
The case was also moot, in that the commission no longer seeks to compel Carrim to file a statement before appearance.
“The notice of motion is aimed at stopping the issuing of subpoenas. The subpoena was served and he was telephonically made aware [of it],” Maenetje argued.
“He wants this court to excuse him from complying with the subpoena because that subpoena has been issued and has not been set aside. The applicant has not asked this court to set it aside. There is no case made out here.”
He argued Carrim’s notice of motion was erroneously challenging the (initial notice requesting a statement and not the affected subpoena and therefore the case was bound to fail.
Carrim is scheduled to appear before the commission on February 6.
Maenetje argued the commission is in a race against time and should the interdict be issued, Carrim would be “permanently excused” from testifying.
If the interdict is made an order of the court, the commission will have to go through a review application, which could take months.
The commission has a deadline of March 16 to finish its work but can make an application for an extension to President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The court will deliver judgment on Thursday.
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.