Matlala claims former lawyer coached him on answers about Sibiya during Parliament testimony

Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala alleges that former advocate Bronwynne Forbay directed parts of his evidence about Shadrack Sibiya before Parliament’s ad hoc committee.

Businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala has alleged that his former lawyer, advocate Bronwynne Forbay, coached him on how to answer questions about former deputy police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya during his appearance before Parliament’s ad hoc committee.

In a draft affidavit, Matlala claims Forbay instructed him to withhold details about his relationship with Sibiya and directed him to give an account of a visit to Sibiya’s home that he says was untrue.

Forbay has strongly rejected the allegations, describing them as “false, unfounded and rejected in the strongest possible terms”.

The claims raise questions about the preparation of Matlala’s parliamentary testimony and the circumstances surrounding his legal representation. However, the allegations in the draft affidavit have not been independently established.

In the draft affidavit, Matlala disputes aspects of his earlier evidence about Sibiya, who has also been the subject of allegations concerning his dealings with the businessman.

“The evidence that I gave before the Ad-Hoc Committee in relation to Lieutenant General Shadrack Sibiya (Sibiya) of the SAPS was coerced by Mr Forbay,” Matlala alleges.

He claims Forbay instructed him not to disclose the full extent of his relationship with Sibiya.

According to the draft affidavit, Matlala was told that Sibiya had threatened to kill his family if he revealed everything he knew.

The affidavit does not independently establish that Sibiya made such a threat. No finding to that effect is included in the material cited, and Sibiya’s response to the allegation is not provided.

Matlala further alleges that conversations between Forbay and Sibiya took place during adjournments of the parliamentary proceedings and influenced how he prepared to answer questions.

“During adjournments at the Ad-Hoc Committee, Mr Forbay (Forbay) would call Sibiya in front of me, and Sibiya would tell him what I am going to be asked and Forbay through Sibiya would direct me how to answer those questions,” the affidavit states.

Matlala says these alleged exchanges led him to suspect that Sibiya was in contact with one or more members of the parliamentary committee.

The passages cited do not identify any committee member alleged to have communicated with Sibiya. Nor do they independently establish that a member disclosed questions improperly.

Image: Oupa Mokoena / Independent Newspapers

One example in the draft affidavit concerns questions about whether Matlala had visited Sibiya’s residence.

Matlala alleges that he was initially instructed to deny visiting the home but was later told to say he had gone there only once to collect his wife.

The draft affidavit states that he was told to say he had gone there “once only to pick up my wife”.

Matlala disputes that version, alleging that it “was not true”.

The allegation concerns whether the account Matlala says he was instructed to give reflected his own recollection of events. It does not, without further evidence, establish what was said during the alleged discussions or whether his testimony was deliberately altered.

He said the preparation of Matlala’s statement was undertaken in conjunction with the evidence leaders, and that the initial consultations and drafting formed part of that engagement.

“We remain bound by our professional duties of confidentiality and legal professional privilege. Those duties limit what we can properly disclose about our interactions with Mr Matlala. They do not, however, prevent us from rejecting allegations that cast an unwarranted shadow over the integrity of his former legal representative,” he said.

Forbay added that his decision not to disclose privileged information should not be interpreted as acceptance of any allegation.

Matlala also alleges that Sibiya influenced Forbay’s appointment as his legal representative.

“Forbay in my view was protecting Sibiya at all costs and I decided to terminate his appointment as my legal representative,” Matlala states in the draft affidavit.

This is Matlala’s characterisation of Forbay’s conduct. The draft affidavit does not independently establish that Forbay acted in Sibiya’s interests or failed to represent Matlala properly.

Matlala further claims that he had not paid Forbay and that he subsequently appointed Hlawu Maluleke Attorneys to represent him. The basis for those claims is not established in the material cited.

The draft affidavit also refers to two mobile phones seized by police when Matlala was arrested: an iPhone 16 Pro Max and an iPhone 15.

Matlala alleges that police returned the devices but that they remained in Forbay’s possession after the lawyer’s appointment ended.

He claims that attempts to retrieve them were unsuccessful and that Forbay later told him the iPhone 16 Pro Max had been stolen from his briefcase at the Krugersdorp Magistrates’ Court.

The draft affidavit does not establish whether the devices remained in Forbay’s possession, whether the alleged theft occurred or whether either phone contained information relevant to Matlala’s parliamentary testimony.

Matlala also alleges that his wife warned him before his parliamentary appearance that she had received threats against him and his family if he mentioned Sibiya.

The allegations form part of a broader account in which Matlala describes his dealings with senior police officials, alleged payments and efforts to secure a state-witness arrangement. These matters require separate verification and should not be treated as proven merely because they appear in a draft affidavit.

The Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) declined to comment on the leaked documents.

“IDAC cannot comment on leaked documents. The plea and sentence agreement between IDAC and Vusimuzi Matlala became null and void upon his withdrawal from the deal,” IDAC spokesperson Henry Mamothame said.

“Furthermore, IDAC does not comment on subjects of investigations to protect the integrity of its work and those involved,” he said.