Brigadier Rachel Matjeng testified this week that she did not see anything wrong about attending meetings about the Medicare24 SAPS contract at the offices of Cat VIP Protection, a private company that is related to infamous businessman Vusimuzi Cat Matlala. This testimony sent shockwaves through the Madlanga Commission.
Matjeng, who is the Section Head for Quality Management at SAPS Forensic Services, stated to the commissioners that she was not concerned about the choice of venue, despite the fact that the conversations directly affected a government contract worth multiple millions of rand. She stated that Cat VIP Protection was nothing more than a convenient location and emphasised that there was no breaches in the formal protocols of the South African Police Service.
In the midst of the commission’s investigation into suspected conflicts of interest and dubious relationships between senior police officers and private company personalities involved in South African Police Service contracts, the testimony was presented. In the course of the investigation being conducted by the commission, Matjeng was questioned by the commissioners over the optics of holding state-related negotiations at a private company that had direct ties to Matlala. Matlala’s commercial dealings have been scrutinised in several aspects of the investigation.
On the other hand, I do not understand how the location of a meeting can always imply improper behaviour, as Matjeng stated. Discussions were conducted in a professional manner, with a primary focus on the contract, and no SAPS resources were misappropriated. Cat VIP Protection was nothing more than a location.
Further emphasis was placed by the commissioners on the peculiarity of holding discussions regarding state contracts outside of official offices. Some people believe that these kinds of arrangements should be avoided because they blur the borders between personal relationships and professional responsibilities, which raises questions about responsibility and transparency.
Despite the fact that she was being questioned, Matjeng insisted that her decision-making was based on professionalism, and she emphasised on multiple occasions that she acted within the parameters of her official responsibilities. At the same time, she emphasised that there was no attempt to influence the outcomes of the contracts or to benefit Matlala’s businesses.
Legal analysts who followed the proceedings came to the conclusion that although Matjeng’s evidence would appear to be uncomplicated, the venue choice might be interpreted as part of a larger pattern of tight links between senior police officers and corporate firms that are related to lucrative contracts with the South African Police Service (SAPS).
An investigation into the awarding and management of the Medicare24 contract is currently being carried out by the commission. The investigation is looking into both the adherence to procedures and the potential conflicts of interest. In his defence of meetings that were held at a private firm, Matjeng highlights the delicate balance that the commission must negotiate between the practicalities of the procedures and the public’s impression of what is appropriate as behaviour.
The question that remains as the hearings progress is whether the choice of a private facility that is connected to businessmen represents a benign logistical option or a disturbing symbol of blurred boundaries at the core of their contract dealings with the South African Police Service (SAPS). The rigorous investigation being conducted by the commission is expected to come up with answers in the coming weeks.
