Madlanga Commission: Arguments on Mr. Carrim's In-Camera Application | 9 March 2026 скачать в хорошем качестве

Madlanga Commission: Arguments on Mr. Carrim's In-Camera Application | 9 March 2026

Today's proceedings before the #MadlangaCommission dealt with an interlocutory application brought by Mr. Suliman Carrim, seeking to have his evidence heard in camera due to safety and security concerns. On the preliminary point, Advocate Premhid for Mr. Carrim raised concerns that arguing the in-camera application in open session with live broadcasts would render the application futile, as the very fact of seeking protective measures would become public knowledge. He cited the Sutherland judgment, noting that once confidentiality is lost, it is difficult to get it back. The court was told that Mr. Carrim has received death threats even before testifying, with surveillance concerns affecting him, his family, and his business interests. Advocate Premhid reminded the Commission that two previous witnesses who appeared before the Commission have died, one by alleged suicide after an attempt on their life, and another allegedly in relation to their testimony. Legal argument relied on Constitutional Court authorities including Carmichael, Masetla, Midi Television, and Mamabolo, establishing the state's positive duty to protect citizens where rights to life, security, and family are threatened. The Commission, as a body exercising public power, is bound by this obligation. Chairperson Madlanga and Commissioner Kumalo raised concerns about prayers three and four of the application, which sought to exclude even the Commission's investigation team, researchers, and head of security from accessing documents. The Chair noted this is problematic because that is the work of the Commission, investigators must have access to do their jobs, and other witnesses must have fair opportunity to respond to any evidence implicating them. Ms. Hassim for the evidence leaders clarified that the Commission has never breached confidentiality regarding witness statements, and that statements only become public once a witness testifies. She noted the 3 March directive explicitly scheduled an open session, and that compliance with Commission rulings is mandatory to protect process integrity. The Chair ruled that the in-camera application itself would be heard in open session, with brief written reasons to follow on Monday. The merits of whether Mr. Carrim's evidence will be heard in camera will now be argued in open court. This application engages constitutional principles of open justice, the right to a fair trial, and the state's duty to protect witnesses from harm. The Commission must balance transparency with the real and present risks faced by those who come forward to testify on matters at the heart of South Africa's criminal justice system. The merits of the in-camera application will now proceed. A determination on whether Mr. Carrim's evidence will be heard in open or closed session is pending. #MadlangaCommission #StateCapture #InCameraApplication #WitnessProtection #RuleOfLaw #SouthAfrica