Madlanga CommissionLatest day

Madlanga Commission hearing record

Day 179 of the Madlanga Commission

Evidence led by Advocate Adila Hassim SC, Advocate Matthew Chaskalson SC

Two men were due in the box and neither came. One of them now has criminal charges coming for it, and the other lost in court and had his messages read aloud without him.

Official record ↗All hearing days
Still from Day 179 of the Madlanga Commission

The day in brief

What you need to know

  • Nothing on this page is a finding. Two absent men, a refused application and a body of documentary evidence read into the record do not decide anything alleged against anyone, and everyone named here is presumed innocent.
  • Dismissed Major-General Feroz Khan did not appear, for the second time under subpoena. His evidence had already been moved to this date by the 1 September ruling, on conditions he was told to meet.
  • The application to move it again came in on Sunday night, the evening before he was due. Per SABC News his legal representative asked for about another month and proposed virtual testimony from a familiar setting, resting on psychological reports, so that 'there's no triggers'.
  • The chairperson refused it, and per the Daily Maverick, Business Day, SABC News and The Citizen held: 'His non-appearance today is a flagrant disregard of a subpoena by this commission.'
  • Per The Citizen he put the principle to Khan's representative in the chamber: 'If we accept this, Mr Vally, then what is the point of a subpoena? It becomes a meaningless piece of paper.'
  • Per TimesLIVE evidence leader Advocate Adila Hassim SC asked for the referral: 'In my view the non-attendance is in defiance of the subpoena and should be referred to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for determination.'
  • Per Business Day, The Citizen, SABC News and the African News Agency the chairperson then directed the commission's secretary, Dr Nolitha Vukuza, to lay criminal charges against Khan for failing to attend.
  • Per Business Day the offence is a creature of the Commissions Act: a person summoned who fails to attend without sufficient cause is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to R1,093 or up to six months' imprisonment, or both. A referral is not a charge, a charge is not a conviction, and no court has heard any of it.
  • Part of Khan's evidence may still be heard on 6 October 2026, per Eyewitness News and the Daily Maverick, if the evidence leaders' pending application to hear the WhatsApp portion in camera succeeds. The chairperson had not ruled on that application.
  • The second half of the day belonged to the other man who was not there. Oupa 'Bafana' Sindane lost his urgent bid in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria to stop the commission using WhatsApp messages taken off his phone: per News24 and SNL24 it was struck from the roll, and per News24 and The Citizen with punitive costs.
  • Chief evidence leader Advocate Matthew Chaskalson SC then did exactly what the 25 September ruling allowed and led the documentary evidence without him. Per Sowetan he characterised the communications as 'an extortion racket enforced with threats of violence'.
  • The complainant at the centre of it, per TimesLIVE and Sowetan, is Dr Thomas Ntuli, who held a South African National Roads Agency contract to upgrade the Moloto road. The evidence put a monthly demand of R100,000 from July 2021, an asserted 60/40 split, and a message after a missed payment that Chaskalson attributed to Sindane: 'I demand a response, within 48 hours, detailing why the operation should not be stopped.'
  • Per Sowetan, The Citizen and Inside Politics the commission also heard that Sindane and Madoda 'Joe Ferrari' Sibanyoni allegedly paid legal fees for men convicted in Mpumalanga taxi killings, among them Tshegofatso Richmond Makofane, known as Morwa.
  • The two outlets that covered the Matlala strand describe it differently and this archive is not reconciling them: per Sowetan the messages show personal details of people described as drug runners linked to Vusimuzi 'Cat' Matlala being shared shortly after his arrest, and per The Citizen the pair forwarded media reports about Matlala to associates. Both are records of what the evidence leaders put up, not findings.
  • The written reasons for the 25 September Sindane ruling have now been reported, which they had not been when this archive published that ruling. Per IOL the chairperson found that 'Mr Sindane sat idly by for a considerable length of time and only brought the High Court and postponement applications at the 11th hour', and called it 'a most egregious form of inordinate delay'.
  • Per Sowetan, Sibanyoni is expected back in the witness box on Tuesday 29 September 2026. His cross-examination has had no date since it was postponed on Day 177.
  • Public evidence still closes on 2 October 2026. Nothing has been announced moving it, and the report to the President is due 25 January 2027 after the Presidency's 19 September extension.

Full coverage

The day, in depth

The Sunday-night application, and what a subpoena is for

The commission convened at the Bridgette Mabandla Justice College in Pretoria with dismissed Major-General Feroz Khan's evidence set down at 09:30, a date fixed by the chairperson on 1 September after Khan failed to appear that day too. That ruling was conditional rather than generous: it excused him from this Monday only if he voluntarily submitted by 8 September to an independent specialist agreed between his lawyers and the evidence leaders, and only if that specialist reported that he could not testify, with an outstanding statement due by 18 September. Per Eyewitness News and SABC News what arrived instead, late on Sunday, was a fresh application to move his appearance by roughly another month. Per SABC News his representative, Mr Vally, argued from expert psychological reports, including one from Dr Tando Melapi, that Khan needed more preparation time and that if he testified at all it should be virtually: 'there has to be a virtual arrangement for Khan to testify within a familiar environment so that there's no triggers'. Per the reporting an independent examiner had recommended a virtual hearing. The commission's answer was that even on that footing he was required to be somewhere, and was nowhere.

The chairperson's refusal, and the sentence that ended it

Per The Citizen the exchange with Khan's representative was short and went to first principles. The chairperson pressed the point that outstanding issues between the parties do not suspend a summons: per Eyewitness News, 'It cannot, you cannot, the two of you, unilaterally decide that because there are outstanding issues, then Mr Khan is not attending.' Per The Citizen he put the consequence plainly: 'Does the subpoena mean anything at all? It requires appearance, does it not?' and then, 'If we accept this, Mr Vally, then what is the point of a subpoena? It becomes a meaningless piece of paper.' The finding that followed is the one every outlet led with, per the Daily Maverick, Business Day, SABC News and The Citizen: 'His non-appearance today is a flagrant disregard of a subpoena by this commission.' It is a finding about attendance and nothing else. It says nothing about whether any allegation against Khan is true.

The referral, the secretary and the section

Per TimesLIVE evidence leader Advocate Adila Hassim SC asked for the consequence to be recorded and sent onward: 'In my view the non-attendance is in defiance of the subpoena and should be referred to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for determination.' Per Eyewitness News her formulation in the chamber was procedural in the same direction, that the commission record the non-attendance and refer the relevant record to the NPA. The chairperson went with it. Per Business Day, The Citizen, SABC News and the African News Agency he directed the commission's secretary, Dr Nolitha Vukuza, to take the steps needed to lay criminal charges against Khan for failing to attend. Per Business Day the Commissions Act provides that a person summoned to attend who fails to do so without sufficient cause is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to R1,093 or imprisonment of up to six months, or both. The figure is small and the point is not the fine. The point is that a commission with no power to arrest can convert defiance into a docket, and that is now what has happened. Whether the NPA prosecutes, and whether Khan had sufficient cause, are for other people to decide. He is presumed innocent of it.

What is still owed, and the 6 October window

Refusing the postponement did not dispose of Khan's evidence, which the commission still wants and has still not had. Per Eyewitness News and the Daily Maverick the chairperson indicated that part of it may yet be heard on 6 October 2026, if the application the evidence leaders themselves brought on 25 September succeeds. That application asks that certain WhatsApp communications involving Khan and the documents that go with them be led in camera, with the public and the media excluded but his legal representatives present and able to take instructions, and that the transcripts and recordings of that portion remain confidential. Per Eyewitness News the stated ground is that the material 'may risk ongoing sensitive investigations'. The media were given 72 hours to oppose, and the chairperson had not ruled by the close of this sitting. Note the shape of it: Khan's own team asked for in camera in July and was refused; the evidence leaders are now asking, and his team asked on Monday for his testimony to be heard in camera too. Per Business Day the evidence he has still not answered includes an allegation that he received kickbacks in a R280 million Treasury tender.

The court loss that unlocked the afternoon

While the commission sat, Oupa 'Bafana' Sindane's urgent application was called in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria. He had gone there on the night of 22 September asking that the subpoena compelling his testimony be set aside and that the commission be stopped from using WhatsApp messages taken off his phone. Per News24 his case was that the Hawks seized the phone for a pending extortion and money laundering matter and that the warrant could not be repurposed without permission, and that the device held 'deeply private information which had nothing to do with any investigation by the commission or with the charges I face'. Per News24 and SNL24 the court struck the application from the roll, and per News24 and The Citizen it did so with punitive costs. Sowetan describes the court as the Johannesburg High Court while News24 and SNL24 place it in Pretoria; this archive records the disagreement rather than picking a side. The practical effect was immediate. The last obstacle to the 25 September order that his evidence be led 'in whatever format' was gone, and the commission spent the afternoon leading it.

The extortion racket, as the evidence leaders put it

Chief evidence leader Advocate Matthew Chaskalson SC took the commission through WhatsApp exchanges recovered from the phones. Per Sowetan he characterised them as showing 'an extortion racket enforced with threats of violence'. The complainant, per TimesLIVE and Sowetan, is Dr Thomas Ntuli, a businessman who had secured a South African National Roads Agency contract to upgrade the Moloto road and who also holds mining interests. The account put to the commission was of a monthly demand of R100,000 running from July 2021, preceded by an asserted 60/40 ownership split that was later reduced to the monthly figure, with Ntuli said to have withdrawn R100,000 from his business account and handed it to Madoda 'Joe Ferrari' Sibanyoni in July 2021. Per TimesLIVE and Sowetan a missed payment in July 2024 produced a message Chaskalson attributed to Sindane: 'I demand a response, within 48 hours, detailing why the operation should not be stopped.' Per TimesLIVE a further threat in November 2025 is attributed to Philemon Msiza, said to have warned that operations at Ntuli's mining company would stop without payment. These are the same facts as the criminal case: per TimesLIVE and Sowetan, Sibanyoni, Sindane, Mvimbi Masilela and Msiza were arrested in May 2026, charged with extortion and money laundering, and released on R70,000 bail each. All four deny the charges. The earlier account on this archive, drawn from Sowetan and the African News Agency in August, put the protection payments at more than R2 million between 2022 and 2025; the evidence led on Monday starts the clock in July 2021. Both are recorded.

Legal fees, and the men already convicted

Per Sowetan, The Citizen and Inside Politics the commission also heard that Sindane and Sibanyoni allegedly funded legal representation for men convicted in taxi-related killings in Mpumalanga. Sowetan names Calvin Gwabo Mahlangu and Tshofatso Makofane; The Citizen names Tshegofatso Richmond Makofane, known as Morwa, and describes him as a taxi industry hitman sentenced over organised shootings. Per the SABC News coverage of the sitting one of the men was sentenced to life imprisonment in January 2025. Paying a person's legal fees is not in itself an offence, and the commission's interest is in what the relationship is said to show rather than in the payment alone. Neither Sindane nor Sibanyoni has answered this allegation from the witness box. Sibanyoni gave evidence on Days 169 and 177 and rejected the 'group of five' allegation against him; this material was not put to him then.

The Matlala strand, and two outlets that describe it differently

The commission's evidence also reached across into the strand it has spent months on. Per Sowetan the WhatsApp messages allegedly show Sindane and Sibanyoni sharing the personal details of people described as drug runners linked to Vusimuzi 'Cat' Matlala operating in Tshwane, shortly after Matlala's arrest for attempted murder. Per The Citizen what the messages show is the two men tracking the activities of Matlala, whom it describes as a rival tenderpreneur, and forwarding media reports about him to associates. Those are not the same claim, and only two outlets carried the strand at all. This archive records both characterisations as reported and does not choose between them. What is not in dispute is that Matlala is himself an accused in the trial over the 10 August 2022 shooting of Sibanyoni at the Centurion Golf and Country Club estate, in which Sibanyoni is the state's first witness, and that Matlala denies those charges. Nothing led on Monday is a finding against Matlala, Sindane or Sibanyoni.

Where it was left

The day ended with the commission's record fuller and its two subpoenaed men still unheard. Khan has a criminal referral behind him and a possible partial, closed hearing on 6 October in front of him. Sindane has lost in the High Court, lost his postponement, and has now had his messages read into a public record he was not in the room to answer. Per Sowetan, Sibanyoni was expected back in the witness box on Tuesday 29 September 2026, which would be the first movement on a cross-examination that has had no date since 21 September. Per IOL the written reasons for the Sindane ruling, which were not public when this archive first reported it, turn on delay: the chairperson found that 'Mr Sindane sat idly by for a considerable length of time and only brought the High Court and postponement applications at the 11th hour', described that as 'a most egregious form of inordinate delay', and noted that the commission has 'a limited life' running to 25 January 2027. Public evidence in the chamber closes on 2 October 2026 and no announcement has moved it.

In their words

Key moments from the record

“If we accept this, Mr Vally, then what is the point of a subpoena? It becomes a meaningless piece of paper.”
The chairperson on what a subpoena would be worth. Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga to Khan's legal representative, per The Citizen, refusing the postponement application brought on Sunday night.
“His non-appearance today is a flagrant disregard of a subpoena by this commission.”
The finding on the non-appearance. Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga on dismissed Major-General Feroz Khan's failure to attend, per the Daily Maverick, Business Day, SABC News and The Citizen. It is a finding about attendance only.
“It cannot, you cannot, the two of you, unilaterally decide that because there are outstanding issues, then Mr Khan is not attending.”
Parties cannot excuse themselves. Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga rejecting the argument that outstanding issues between Khan's team and the evidence leaders suspended his obligation to attend, per Eyewitness News.
“In my view the non-attendance is in defiance of the subpoena and should be referred to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for determination.”
Hassim asks for the referral. Evidence leader Advocate Adila Hassim SC asking that the non-attendance go to the National Prosecuting Authority, per TimesLIVE. A referral is not a charge and a charge is not a conviction.
“there has to be a virtual arrangement for Khan to testify within a familiar environment so that there's no triggers”
Khan's representative on a familiar room. Khan's legal representative, Mr Vally, proposing virtual testimony on the strength of psychological reports, per SABC News. Outlets render his first name differently; this archive uses the surname only.
“an extortion racket enforced with threats of violence”
Chaskalson on what the messages amount to. Chief evidence leader Advocate Matthew Chaskalson SC characterising the WhatsApp evidence led in Sindane's absence, per Sowetan. A characterisation by counsel, not a finding by the commission.
“I demand a response, within 48 hours, detailing why the operation should not be stopped.”
The message after the missed payment. A WhatsApp message Chaskalson attributed to Sindane, sent to Dr Thomas Ntuli after a payment was missed in July 2024, per TimesLIVE and Sowetan. Sindane has not answered it and denies the criminal charges.
“Mr Sindane sat idly by for a considerable length of time and only brought the High Court and postponement applications at the 11th hour.”
The reasons behind the Friday ruling, published at last. Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga in the written ruling of 25 September refusing Sindane's postponement, reported for the first time on this day, per IOL.

Our analysis

The bottom line

This was the day the commission stopped absorbing absence and started pricing it. For most of a year the pattern has been the same: a subpoena, a certificate, an application, a new date. On Monday the chairperson named the cost of that pattern out loud, and the sentence to keep is the one about the piece of paper. A commission cannot arrest anyone. What it can do is record a non-attendance and hand it to a prosecutor, and that is now on the record against a man who had already had his date moved once on conditions he was set.

The size of the penalty is the tell, and it cuts both ways. A fine of up to R1,093 is not a deterrent to anyone the evidence in this commission has described. It is close to nothing. What the referral actually does is change the register: a scheduling dispute becomes a docket, and a man already facing a precious-metals prosecution, a dismissal he is challenging and untested allegations of unexplained wealth acquires one more file with his name on it. Whether that is proportionate is a fair question. Whether it was avoidable is a different one, and the answer to that lies with the party that filed on a Sunday night for a Monday appearance.

The two halves of the day are the same argument seen from opposite ends. Khan's team wanted the room reshaped around his condition; Sindane's wanted the evidence kept out of the room altogether. Both lost on the same Monday, and the second loss is the more consequential for the record, because it means the commission has now established that it will read a man's messages into a public archive while he is not there to explain them. Chaskalson argued for exactly this on Day 178 and the chairperson gave it to him on Day 178's ruling. It is a genuinely hard balance: the alternative is that anyone with a High Court application and a medical certificate can run the clock out on a body that closes on 2 October.

What should not be lost in a day of procedure is that the substance finally arrived. Until Monday the taxi strand of this commission was Sibanyoni's denials and a set of messages nobody outside the chamber had seen in detail. It is now an alleged monthly figure, a named complainant, a named road contract and a quoted threat. None of it is proved, all of it is contested, and the men it concerns have answered none of it before this commission. But the record has moved from characterisation to particulars, and particulars are what a report has to be built out of. With four sitting days left before public evidence closes, that shift matters more than the refusal that made room for it.

Analysis is the archive’s own comment on the public proceedings, grounded in the record above. It weighs the evidence and the process; questions of individual guilt are for the courts and the commission to decide. Everyone named is presumed innocent.

In the room & on the record

Counsel, the panel and sources

Evidence led by

On the panel

Sources

← Earlier in timeDay 17823 September 2026