Kingpin Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala Flees His Own Sworn Words — Corruption Claim Unravels in Court

When Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala entered the Johannesburg High Court on Monday morning, he attempted to deny the very affidavit that he had personally commissioned and signed. This document put senior public officials at the center of an alleged bribery network that stretched throughout Gauteng, a move that legal observers considered extraordinary.

The self-described businessman initially swore in that filing that cash payments totalling over R2.3 million moved directly to named government intermediaries between 2021 and 2023. Prosecutors claim the businessman operated a sophisticated underworld operation that supplied protection rackets and illegal contracts to municipal insiders. The state vehemently denies his legal team’s current claim that those paragraphs were written under pressure and do not adequately reflect his orders.

Matlala’s lawyer, Desmond Ferreira SC, was informed by Acting Judge Nomvula Dlamini that a verbal instruction from the deponent was not sufficient to retract factual allegations from a sworn deposition. Senior Advocate Thabo Sithole, a spokesman of the National Prosecuting Authority, affirmed that his agency considers the initial submission to be admissible and legally enforceable, pointing out that investigators based months’ worth of secondary evidence on its revelations.

During a 2022 Hawks-led operation in Ekurhuleni that targeted tender manipulation, Matlala first came to the attention of law enforcement. SAPS members found burner phones that connected him to municipal procurement officials. At least fourteen distinct conversations between his accomplices and the civil servants in charge of awarding infrastructure tenders were allegedly captured by subsequent monitoring, which was described in an earlier NPA submission. He now denies the affidavit that resulted from negotiations for a plea deal that finally fell through.

Just before the midday adjournment, Ferreira paused in the middle of his argument, shuffled three pages of notes, and read aloud a passage that directly contradicted the very retraction he was advancing. This oversight caused the gallery to react audibly, and the judge asked that both parties regroup overnight before continuing. This was perhaps the sharpest moment.

The main question that still hangs over Johannesburg’s legal corridors is this: if a man signs a document identifying corrupt authorities and then attempts to remove those names, who exactly is he shielding, and what does that protection cost the rest of us? The subject continues on Tuesday.

https://x.com/i/status/2120227538362401203

blessing-news feedback-opera-news-app@opera.com