Suliman Carrim’s Madlanga commission: Judgement to be delivered on Thursday

North West businessman Suliman Carrim’s bid to not testify at the Madlanga Commission will be decided on Thursday.

This is after the Gauteng High Court on Tuesday postponed the matter for judgment on Thursday.

Carrim’s urgent attempt to avoid testifying before the Madlanga commission has been challenged, with the commission arguing it constitutes an abuse of court process.

It called for the request to be dismissed.

The ANC member launched an urgent application to the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on Monday seeking to prevent the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Criminality, Political Interference, and Corruption in the Criminal Justice System from compelling his testimony.

Carrim is scheduled to appear before the commission on Friday, February 6.

Commission argues urgency is self-created

Responding to the application, commission chairperson retired Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga told the high court that Carrim has failed to establish valid grounds for urgency.

“The application is an abuse of process, and any urgency faced by Mr Carrim is self-created,” he said.

Madlanga argued that Carrim rushed to court with insufficient notice.

“He abused the court’s process by rushing to court on less than a week’s notice, and the time periods afforded to the commission were unreasonably short.

“I respectfully submit that the application should be struck from the roll with punitive costs, alternatively dismissed with punitive costs,” he said.

#MadlangaCommission | The Commission’s papers filed ahead of today’s court proceedings, in an urgent court application brought by Mr Suliman Carrim seeking to interdict the Commission from calling him to provide evidence. pic.twitter.com/aqWQVSSnvg

— Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (@CrimeWatch_RSA) February 3, 2026

The commission issued its initial notice to Carrim on 29 October 2025, giving him several months before a later scheduled appearance.

ALSO READ: Businessman challenges Madlanga commission subpoena in urgent court bid

Defence argues commission breached its own procedures

Premhid on Tuesday mounted a vigorous defence, arguing the commission violated its own rules in dealing with his client.

He contended that procedural irregularities, not delay tactics, prompted the urgent application.

“The Commission is a public authority, it exercises public power as constrained in an instrument, and the Commission is not doing so here, and we can only get relief from your Ladyship,” Premhid told the court.

He added that “rule 3.5 and its purpose is simply to guarantee fair trial rights of an implicated person, and we’ll demonstrate to your Ladyship how those rights have been breached by the Commission in their failure to apply their own rule 3.5 to their own conduct.”

Premhid rejected characterisations of his client as someone evading accountability, urging the court to focus on the legal merits.

“Your Ladyship will consider the legality of the arguments stripped from all of the evocative language about evading public accountability and so on,” he said.

ALSO READ: Madlanga responds to Witness F’s request not to testify

Application filed two days after latest subpoena

Addressing accusations of delay, Premhid argued the application was lodged promptly following the commission’s most recent subpoena.

He acknowledged potential criticism of the correspondence strategy but maintained that timing considerations should not be the primary factor.

Commission’s operational delays cited

Premhid pointed to the commission’s own delays to counter accusations of deliberate stalling.

Referencing Madlanga’s affidavit, he noted: “In December 2025, due to the unavailability of my co-commissioners, the Commission was not able to resume hearings until 26 January 2025. I assume that should be 2026, as we’re discussing December 25, January 2026. And we all know that’s actually what the, that’s the position the Commission found itself in.”

The advocate argued that Premhid also contended the commission had effectively delayed matters by withdrawing its initial subpoena before issuing a fresh one.

Court intervention necessary, Carrim’s defence argues

Premhid maintained that the high court, rather than the commission itself, was the appropriate forum to address his client’s concerns about procedural fairness.

“Firstly, that’s not the forum to remedy the prejudice. And secondly, any ability to try and remedy that prejudice in the Commission, if the Commission gives no satisfaction, increases the burden on my client as a prejudice to him,” he told the court.

Furthermore, the advocate suggested the situation was comparable to deciding whether to challenge a Section 47 subpoena inquiry directly or through court intervention, stating this approach had precedent in similar cases.

Background to the case

Carrim was implicated in testimony before the Madlanga commission by “Witness X”, alleged crime boss Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala, and Brown Mogotsi.

The allegations centre on claims that he sought to influence suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu regarding a controversial R360 million South African Police Service tender.

In papers filed before the Gauteng High Court, Carrim asked the court to immediately stop the commission from forcing him to submit a written statement or appear before it until the lawfulness of the commission’s actions is reviewed.

The commission maintains there is no lawful basis for the application and is seeking to have the matter struck from the court roll.

READ NEXT: Texts from Witness F’s phone appear to corroborate Matlala’s version