Should prisoners like Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala be allowed gadgets for parliamentary testimony?
prisoners
Political analyst Moses Kau has voiced support for controversial businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala in his bid to access personal electronic devices while in custody, ahead of his testimony before Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee. Matlala, currently detained at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre, seeks use of his iPad, laptop, mobile phone, and data to prepare for his upcoming appearance. Kau, who seldom publicly aligns with Matlala, insists that denying such access would be unfair and could inadvertently set him up for perjury charges if discrepancies arise in his statements.
Moses Kau’s Unexpected Endorsement
In a statement that surprised many observers, Kau declared his agreement with Matlala’s request. “This is one of the rare instances, perhaps the only one, where I align with Mr Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala. I do not know him personally, but even prisoners have rights,” Kau said. While he described Matlala’s request for additional data as “ambitious,” he argued that access to these tools is essential to prevent inconsistencies in testimony being held against him.
Kau drew comparisons to a recent parliamentary hearing involving former Police Minister Senzo Mchunu’s Chief of Staff, Brown Mogotsi. In that case, discrepancies in Mogotsi’s affidavit led to perjury charges, despite him being advised to use approximations for dates and recollections. Kau warned that a similar approach without proper access to preparation materials would be unjust for Matlala. “If Mr. Matlala cannot prepare due to lack of resources, holding him accountable for minor errors would be inequitable,” Kau said, using the metaphor “the chickens have come home to roost” to underscore what he sees as procedural hypocrisy.
Matlala’s Role in High-Stakes Investigations
Matlala is a key figure in multiple investigations surrounding corruption, criminal syndicates, and police interference in KwaZulu-Natal. Arrested in July 2025 on charges including attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and money laundering, he remains a high-profile detainee. Analysts like Kau argue that Matlala’s testimony is vital for ongoing probes, particularly those linked to allegations against police officials like Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, who claims Matlala had influence over drug syndicates and the disbanding of task teams.
Security concerns have prevented Matlala from being physically present in Cape Town, which has led to requests for virtual testimony and access to digital devices for preparation. Kau maintains that equitable treatment for witnesses in custody is essential to safeguard the integrity of parliamentary inquiries and judicial processes.
Fairness, Perjury, and Legal Precedent
Kau emphasized that South African law protects the rights of detainees to adequately prepare for testimony. Denying Matlala access to his devices could raise constitutional issues and complicate proceedings. Legal experts note that perjury charges require intent to deceive; simple errors without access to supporting materials should not constitute grounds for criminal liability. By granting Matlala his gadgets, authorities can ensure procedural fairness while preserving the credibility of parliamentary investigations.
Looking Ahead
As the Ad Hoc Committee continues its scrutiny of alleged criminal infiltration in the police and public offices, Matlala’s participation could reveal critical details about networks, payments, and leaks involving politicians and officials. With Kau advocating for fairness, this case raises broader questions about how South Africa balances detainee rights against the public’s need for transparency and accountability.
FAQ
Q: Who is Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala?
A: He is a North West businessman currently detained on charges including attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, and money laundering.
Q: Why does Matlala want access to devices?
A: To prepare thoroughly for his testimony before Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee.
Q: What is Moses Kau’s stance?
A: He supports Matlala’s request, arguing that denying access could lead to unfair perjury charges.
Q: How does this relate to perjury cases?
A: Kau draws parallels with Brown Mogotsi’s hearing, where lack of preparation and reliance on approximations caused scrutiny and charges.
Q: Could granting access to devices set a precedent?
A: Yes, it reinforces the principle that detainees have the right to adequate preparation for legal and parliamentary proceedings.
