Hearing record
Day 55
On her second day, Brigadier Rachel Matjeng told the commission she had actually stepped in to stop the SAPS 'bleeding millions' to Matlala, recasting herself as someone who intervened against the contract rather than for it, before a witness identified only as Witness F followed.
The day in brief
What you need to know
- Matjeng returned on Friday, 6 February 2026 for a second day of testimony, with a witness identified only as Witness F also featuring in the day's proceedings.
- Matjeng told the commission she had intervened to stop SAPS 'bleeding millions' to the Matlala-linked contract, framing herself as acting against, not for, the deal.
- She continued to reject any suggestion that her relationship with Matlala translated into influence over the procurement.
- The protected designation of Witness F points to the commission's continued use of anonymity for certain witnesses in the Matlala-related strands.
- The two days together placed the R360-million SAPS contract and the conduct of Forensic Services officers at the centre of the week's hearings.
- Matjeng is presumed innocent and the allegations remain untested.
Full coverage
The day, in depth
Matjeng recasts her role as an intervention
IOL reported that on her second day Matjeng told the commission she stepped in to stop the SAPS 'bleeding millions' to her 'lover' Cat Matlala. The framing sought to turn the conflict-of-interest narrative on its head, presenting her actions as protective of the public purse rather than facilitative of the contract. She continued to deny wrongdoing in relation to the tender.
Witness F and continued anonymity
The commission's own record for the day lists Brigadier Rachel Matjeng and a witness identified only as Witness F as the primary focus of proceedings. The use of an alphabetical designation signals a protected or anonymised witness, a mechanism the commission has applied in sensitive strands of the Matlala investigation. Public reporting concentrated on Matjeng, with Witness F's evidence handled more discreetly.
Our analysis
The bottom line
The shift across Matjeng's two days is notable: from establishing that a relationship existed to arguing that, if anything, she used her position to curb spending rather than steer it toward Matlala. That is a coherent line of defence, and it deserves to be reported as her account rather than judged. The commission will weigh it against documentary evidence about who influenced the contract and how, which is work that extends well beyond a single witness's characterisation of her own motives.
The appearance of Witness F alongside a named senior officer is a reminder that the commission is assembling its picture from both public and protected testimony. Anonymity protects witnesses who may face risk, but it also means the fullest version of the day's evidence is not all in the open record. Readers should treat the visible portion as partial, and resist drawing conclusions about anyone, named or unnamed, from what remains an untested body of evidence.
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
On the panel
- Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga (chairperson)