The testimony of controversial businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala at the Madlanga Commission is raising serious questions about his credibility, particularly after a series of conflicting statements about payments allegedly made to senior police officials and his disputed relationship with former police minister Bheki Cele.

What initially appeared to be a straightforward denial has developed into a much more complicated account. Matlala first denied paying suspended police deputy commissioner Shadrack Sibiya R500,000. However, after being confronted with the allegation during his testimony, he acknowledged making the payment, explaining that it was a contribution towards a family wedding. The admission placed his earlier version under renewed scrutiny and raised questions about why the payment had initially been denied.

But the controversy did not end there. Matlala also challenged the contents of a failed plea agreement statement in which allegations involving Cele were recorded. He claimed investigators from the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) exaggerated aspects of his account and pressured him to implicate senior officials. Matlala has disputed the suggestion that the statement accurately reflects what he told investigators, alleging that certain details were inserted to create a history of contact and a corrupt relationship.

His testimony about Cele is particularly serious. Matlala has alleged that he handed over money to the former police minister, including claims involving a larger amount allegedly linked to discussions around his company, Medicare24, and police investigations. Cele has denied receiving money from Matlala. These remain disputed allegations, not established findings of the commission.

The central issue is no longer simply what Matlala says happened. It is whether his different versions can be supported by independent evidence. Banking records, withdrawal slips, phone communications, WhatsApp messages, witness testimony and the accounts of the officials involved will all be important in determining what actually took place.

There are also questions that investigators must answer about Matlala’s allegations of pressure during the preparation of his statement. If investigators improperly influenced a witness or inserted allegations into a statement, that would be a serious matter requiring scrutiny. Equally, if Matlala is changing his account to distance himself from damaging allegations, that too must be tested.

The Madlanga Commission is dealing with allegations that reach into the heart of South Africa’s policing and criminal justice system. The public deserves more than competing versions of events. It deserves evidence, accountability and answers.

For Matlala, every contradiction creates another question that must be answered. For the officials he has implicated, the allegations must be independently investigated and tested. And for the commission, the challenge is to establish what can be proven, rather than simply accepting the account of any one witness.

At the Madlanga Commission, the jig may be up for convenient explanations. But the evidence must now do the talking.