Awaiting trialist, Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala has made damning allegations during his time to give evidence at the Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee by claiming to have given former Police Minister Bheki Cele R500 000 in two cash payments.
He accused the former Minister of “lying under oath” during his testimony at the Ad Hoc Committee where he expressed confidence in his testimony.
According to Matlala, he initially made a cash payment of R300 000 to Cele at his residence in Pretoria in January 2025 while the second payment (R200 000) was made two months later at a hotel.
Matlala further revealed that Cele stayed at his apartment three or four times, allegations that he denied during his testimoney.
Alleged Big Five cartel member, Matlala, is fielding questions from Parliament.
Matlala is currently awaiting trial and is accused of attempted murder of his ex-girlfriend.
He is also linked to questionable tender dealings, which he refuses to talk about, afraid of “increminating” himself, and was given time to consult with his legal team.
He is currently testifying before the ad hoc committee at Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Facility in Pretoria, chained on legs with his suit of Burberry clothing.
His appearance follows uncertainty that he might not testify after his lawyers said they are worried about his mental state.
It took some time for Matlala to appear before the Ad Hoc Committee, as Members of Parliament disagreed over whether proceedings should continue without a signed statement from him.
This was after evidence leader Advocate Norman Arendse, told the committee that Matlala had not provided a final, signed statement but hoped that it would be signed later.
“It is not a precondition to have a signed statement before appearing. What is important is that he gives his evidence under oath and is held to whatever answers he gives,” he told the MPs.
But the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party disagreed, with MP Sibonelo Nomvalo arguing that established committee practice required a proper, signed document before any witness could be questioned.
“We identified discrepancies in General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s statement because we did not want to carry on with a statement which has loopholes. Because a statement is a legal document and might be used in litigation in future. We are not comfortable with cross-questioning a witness under a statement which has not been signed,” Nomvalo said.
