‘We’ll never know’: Carrim’s obstinacy meets Madlanga’s wrath

It was the week in which North West tenderpreneur Suliman Carrim’s obstinacy ran headlong into justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga’s wrath at the Madlanga commission.

What had been billed as a highlight of the commission’s hearings lived up to its billing, but not in the way some had hoped.

Once again, Carrim remained a mysterious and silent figure, shielded by a sick note from appearing and often mentioned in proceedings but seemingly reluctant to give his side of the story.

Instead, South Africans glued to their TV screens to follow the commission witnessed a visibly irate judge letting rip at the elusive witness who has repeatedly pleaded ill health to avoid having to spill the beans.

In what could perhaps be described as a draw, even after extra time, Carrim now faces the distinct possibility of a hefty fine or even jail time, while it has become increasingly obvious that South Africa may never get to hear what he has to say about the allegations made against him by witnesses.

There will be no great reveal about his relationship with suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu or about the financial transactions involving associates such as Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala and Brown Mogotsi in the R360m SAPS tender awarded to Medicare24.

It was quite clear that Carrim doesn’t want to give his version, which is a sign of guilt. This gives the commission leeway to reach whatever conclusion it would have reached relying on the evidence before the commission, which is reasonable

—  Prof Alex van den Heever, Wits School of Governance.

Carrim testified that he lent Matlala R10m but denied any knowledge of — or role in — alleged corruption relating to the controversial tender. His testimony also linked him to controversial tender tycoon Hangwani Morgan Maumela.

The commission would likely have quizzed Carrim on suspicious financial flows and alleged political influence-peddling, as well as claims that he tried to stall or influence investigations into high-profile tenders.

Instead, there is just silence — and eloquent irritation from the judge South Africans are increasingly looking to as a beacon of light amid the darkness of skullduggery at the intersection of under-the-counter business and politics in South Africa.

“You don’t evade going to the commission unless you have something to hide,” said Prof Alex van den Heever of the Wits School of Governance.

“By not countering the evidence before the commission, Carrim has exposed himself to an adverse inference. He will probably be charged and go to jail for not appearing, but he could still be required to appear, even in prison.

“It was quite clear that Carrim doesn’t want to give his version, which is a sign of guilt. This gives the commission leeway to reach whatever conclusion it would have reached relying on the evidence before the commission, which is reasonable.”

Van den Heever said all would now depend on how the criminal proceedings unfolded.

“There’s already other evidence before the commission ... you don’t evade going to the commission unless you have something to hide. Carrim has chosen not to challenge any adverse evidence that the commission has. It shows that he is really scared of the commission; the commission is in a position to adopt whatever that evidence suggests.”

Carrim’s testimony has been postponed multiple times — he has cited health issues, including an alleged heart attack — while evidence leaders, using geolocation data, have questioned the validity of his absences.

From where we are sitting, we don’t consider Mr Carrim’s doctor to be an objective expert. He’s an expert that’s closely associated with Mr Carrim and who, from where we are sitting, unless we get another opinion, appears to be pushing Mr Carrim’s story

—  Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga

On Friday, evidence leader Adila Hassim said Carrim had not undergone an independent medical assessment, as ordered by the commission. She said the commission had gone out of its way, providing the name of a specialist to Carrim’s attorneys and forwarding that information to his family and treating doctor.

Madlanga was angry and unmoved by the same tired arguments from Carrim’s lawyer, Kameel Premhid.

“From where we are sitting, we don’t consider Mr Carrim’s doctor to be an objective expert,” Madlanga told Premhid. “He’s an expert that’s closely associated with Mr Carrim and who, from where we are sitting, unless we get another opinion, appears to be pushing Mr Carrim’s story.

“So very close to, if not analogous to, what courts have referred to as a hired gun in this sense. If a court wants to get an objective view, it will want to get someone who is independent, as opposed to someone who is closely associated with the person concerned. And this is exactly what we have here, a medical specialist who has been treating Mr Carrim for this lengthy period.”

As the stalemate became clear, Madalanga made his ruling.

“The commission is minded to refer Mr Carrim for a criminal process. What the relevant authorities do in that regard is for them to decide. Whether he’s taken to the SAPS to see if they can lay charges or the NPA for them to see whether to prosecute, that is what the commission is minded to do.”

The commission says it will make its findings based on the evidence Carrim gave in March. He will no longer be required to appear before the commission.

Carrim could face jail time for his refusal to appear before the commission. His conduct will be referred to the authorities for investigation and prosecution in respect of contraventions of the Commissions Act, as well as the regulations governing the commission.

The SAPS would need to find out why Carrim contravened the offer of the commission ... Contempt of court is expected to be one of the charges

—  Andy Mashaile, former Interpol ambassador and security strategist

Former Interpol ambassador and security strategist Andy Mashaile said after the charge is laid with the SAPS, police are expected to conduct further investigations into Carrim’s noncompliance with the commission’s order.

“The SAPS would need to find out why Carrim contravened the offer of the commission ... Contempt of court is expected to be one of the charges,” Mashaile said.

He said a court would most likely impose a fine or prison term on Carrim for the contravention.

There is no fixed minimum or maximum sentence for contempt of court. Sentences are at the discretion of the presiding judge or magistrate, ranging from a warning or a small fine to imprisonment, depending on whether it is civil or criminal contempt.

Former president Jacob Zuma was famously sentenced to 15 months in prison for contempt of court in 2021 for defying an order to appear before the state capture commission. However, his case was particularly egregious, as even the Constitutional Court had ruled that he must appear.

The Madlanga commission yesterday declined to comment on whether it could still subpoena Carrim’s electronic devices and bank statements.

Commission spokesperson Jeremy Michaels said Carrim had been ordered to appear and testify in person before the commission on August 14, unless he had voluntarily subjected himself to examination by an independent medical specialist. The specialist was to submit a medical report to the commission by no later than August 12.

“Given that Mr Carrim did not comply with the ruling, justice Madlanga on Friday instructed the secretary of the commission, Dr Nolitha Vukuza, to lay criminal charges against Mr Carrim,” Michaels said.

“Mr Carrim’s conduct will be referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution in respect of contraventions of the Commissions Act, as well as the regulations governing this commission.

“The Commissions Act, as well as the regulations of this commission, make it an offence to wilfully hinder or obstruct the work of the commission. Persons found guilty of such conduct face penalties including a fine and/or imprisonment.”