Hearing record

Day 99

Day 99, 30 April 2026. The sitting was dominated by suspended Tshwane Metro Police Department director Tshukudu Malatji, back in the hot seat for a second appearance. The commission refused his bid to postpone, and Malatji distanced himself from a cancelled security contract that reportedly cost the City of Tshwane millions, telling the inquiry his superiors had left him to carry the blame.

Still from Day 99 of the Madlanga Commission

The day in brief

What you need to know

  • Malatji, suspended director for asset and services protection at the TMPD, returned for his second stint before the commission on 30 April 2026.
  • Through his lawyer Sibusiso Nkosi, Malatji sought a postponement, arguing he had received documents late - some sent just before midnight the night before - but the commission refused the adjournment and instead gave him about an hour to review them, according to IOL.
  • At issue was his alleged failure to act on an instruction from a superior, Faro, to halt ad hoc security deployments after a contract was cancelled.
  • IOL reported that one beneficiary company, Gubis 85 Solutions, was paid more than R59 million for services the city regarded as unlawful, with at least R14 million treated as irregular expenditure.
  • Malatji rejected personal blame, and Inside Metros reported that he denied authorising post-cancellation deployments and said an official named Phiri had acted alone.
  • Malatji is suspended and testifying, not charged with a crime in this sitting; his denials are his account and the commission has yet to make any finding.

Full coverage

The day, in depth

The postponement that was refused

Malatji opened by asking the commission to delay his evidence, saying through advocate Sibusiso Nkosi that he had not had time to work through documents delivered late, including material sent close to midnight. The commission declined to adjourn but allowed him roughly an hour to read the papers, EWN and IOL reported. The ruling kept the second appearance on track after his earlier April testimony.

Throwing the blame upward

The most quoted moment came when Malatji sought to shift responsibility to his superiors. IOL headlined his position with his own words: "My bosses threw me under the bus." He argued he could not be held responsible for security contracts he says were driven above his level, and, per Inside Metros, insisted that a colleague named Phiri had acted alone in authorising deployments after the contract was cancelled.

The money the city says it lost

The dispute centres on ad hoc security spending that outlasted the cancellation of an underlying contract. IOL reported that Gubis 85 Solutions received more than R59 million for services the City of Tshwane deemed unlawful, with at least R14 million flagged as irregular. Malatji's case is that he neither authorised nor benefited from the continued deployments.

Our analysis

The bottom line

The refusal of the postponement is defensible on its face - late documents are a real handicap, but the commission's compromise of reading time rather than adjournment is the kind of proportionate case-management call inquiries routinely make. It is worth noting for fairness that a witness pressed to respond to late material is entitled to have any genuine prejudice weighed later if his evidence is used against him.

On the substance, Malatji's defence is a familiar one - I followed the chain of command, and the fault lies above or beside me. That can be both true and incomplete - a subordinate can be less culpable than his superiors while still bearing some duty to halt spending he knew to be irregular. The commission's task is to test whether the instruction from Faro existed, whether Malatji acted on it, and who authorised the post-cancellation deployments, rather than to accept or reject his framing wholesale. Nothing on Day 99 resolves those questions, and Malatji, who is suspended rather than charged, keeps the presumption of innocence while the documentary trail is examined.

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.