The Madlanga Commisssion of Inquiry will rule on Monday on whether ANC member and North West businessman Suliman Carrim will testify in camera due to threats he has received.
Image: Kamogelo Moichela / IOL News
North West businessman and ANC member Suliman Carrim has been slammed at the Madlanga Judicial Commission of Inquiry, where sought to have his evidence heard in camera on Monday and Tuesday.
The commission, chaired by retired Constitutional Court Justice Mbuyiseni Madlanga, heard evidence by his advocate Kameel Premhid and evidence leader Adila Cassim SC.
Commissioner Advocate Sesi Baloyi SC accused Carrim of seeking to portray the commission as being treated unfairly.
“If your client has facts, he must list them and let a reasonable person judge,” she told Premhid.
According to Baloyi, this was the first time that the commission got a complaint that this is a fishing expedition.
“I’m really expressing displeasure with the conduct of Carrim because it is not substantiated by anything that he has placed before us,” she stated.
Cassim accused the witness of being paranoid. “It would be futile to have an in camera hearing, his identity is known. He is publicly known, his face is known,” she said.
Premhid said his client was not asking for privilege but for something that the rules of the commission’s own rules provides for.
He said Carrim received threats including one that read: “before you appear at the commission we will show you and your ice boy”.
“Go to Madlanga, we will stay behind and take care of your stuff,” read another threatening message.
Earlier this month, Carrim lost his bid to avoid giving evidence before the commission on February 6 when Gauteng High Court, Pretoria Judge Denise Fisher struck the matter off the roll with costs.
Carrim sought to interdict his scheduled appearance before the commission, which was initially set for Friday, February 6.
In her judgment, Judge Fisher found that Carrim’s provision of the evidence has been resisted by him through his attorney, Sikander Tayob Attorneys.
“The resistance has been framed on the basis that the applicant (Carrim) has no objection to his appearance at the commission provided his detailed demands for information are met,” she said.
According to the ruling, it seems from the correspondence that, while feigning willingness to co-operate, Carrim was, in fact, actively placing unreasonable impediments in the way of the testimony, which he will have to give before the commission.
“The level of obstruction is such that the applicant’s attorney has refused even to accept service of process through his office notwithstanding being on record; physical service by the sheriff is insisted on,” the judge stated.
She added that Carrim took an approach that is overly ambitious in the context of the investigative role which the commission occupies.
“It reflects a lack of understanding of this role and the position of the commission from a legal perspective. The position adopted is that the applicant will not comply until and unless he is provided with a long list of information relating to his being implicated in relevant activity under investigation. This is not a position which he is entitled to adopt in the face of the summons,” Judge Fisher found.
The commission’s ruling on the in camera application will be handed down on Monday.