Fresh controversy has erupted following revelations that SAPS Brigadier Rachel Matjeng was in a romantic relationship with businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala, bringing renewed attention to questions previously raised in Parliament about their alleged relationship and financial dealings.
Matjeng’s admission comes amid ongoing scrutiny at the Madlanga Commission, which is probing allegations of corruption, undue influence, and improper relationships involving senior police officials. Her testimony has reignited public interest in an exchange that took place last year during an Ad Hoc Committee session involving ActionSA MP Dareleen James.
During that session, James directly questioned Matlala on whether he had ever paid for a Brazilian Butt Lift (BBL) procedure for a senior SAPS official. At the time, the question drew shock and controversy, with Matlala denying wrongdoing and the issue remaining unresolved due to a lack of direct confirmation.
Matjeng has now confirmed that she was romantically involved with Matlala, a revelation that has cast the earlier parliamentary question in a new and more serious light. While she has not publicly confirmed whether the alleged BBL procedure formed part of the gifts or financial support she received, her admission has intensified speculation around the nature and extent of benefits exchanged during the relationship.
According to Matjeng’s testimony, Matlala showered her with money and gifts during the course of their relationship. She also alleged that he requested she use a separate account so that his wife would not discover the financial transactions, a detail that has raised serious ethical and legal concerns before the commission.
The resurfacing of the BBL question has sparked renewed debate about accountability and transparency within the South African Police Service. Critics argue that what was once dismissed as an inappropriate or sensational parliamentary question now appears to align with a broader pattern of secretive financial support and personal relationships involving senior law enforcement officials.
ActionSA has reiterated its call for full disclosure, arguing that Parliament’s oversight role is being vindicated by the developments unfolding at the commission. Political analysts say the situation highlights how unanswered questions in parliamentary processes can later become central to judicial and quasi-judicial inquiries.
Public reaction has been swift, with many South Africans expressing outrage on social media and questioning how senior SAPS officials could become entangled in relationships that expose the institution to reputational damage.
The Madlanga Commission has stressed that all allegations will be tested against evidence and that no conclusions have yet been reached. However, Matjeng’s admission has undeniably shifted the narrative, linking past parliamentary scrutiny to present-day testimony in one of the most explosive policing scandals in recent years.
As the commission continues, pressure is mounting for full transparency around the benefits allegedly received and whether any laws, ethical codes, or SAPS regulations were violated.