Commissioner Baloyi, Madlanga & Khumalo Slam General Khan Lawyer hard on his application.
The high-stakes proceedings of the Madlanga Commission erupted into severe tension as legal arguments surrounding suspended Major General Khan triggered an aggressive pushback from the panel.
At the center of the fierce courtroom battle was an urgent application for postponement submitted on behalf of Major General Khan, who failed to appear at the inquiry.
Counsel representing Major General Khan, Advocate Valley, presented arguments attempting to justify the absence of the senior official based on an existing medical report.
The commission immediately challenged the legal team, demanding to know why the panel should accept the submission that forcing Major General Khan to undergo an independent medical assessment would produce adverse or deleterious effects on his health.
The commissioners repeatedly pointed out that the medical report submitted into evidence contained no expert opinion from a treating doctor to support such a claim.
The chairperson and commissioner directly confronted Advocate Valley, emphasizing that the legal team brought the application for postponement with their eyes wide open.
The panel noted that the legal representatives of Major General Khan were fully aware of a previous ruling made in the separate matter involving Mr. Karim, where the commission interposed an independent medical practitioner to evaluate a witness.
Despite knowing that precedent, the legal team for Major General Khan failed to include any medical evidence or expert affidavit addressing whether an independent examination would harm Major General Khan.
When Advocate Valley suggested that the commission should pause to allow the treating doctor to supplement the papers, the panel flatly refused.
The chairperson declared that the commission would not grant Major General Khan another opportunity to fix his application and that a binding ruling would be made strictly on the papers currently before the court.
Throughout the intense exchange, Advocate Valley attempted to navigate the evidence on page 72 of the official record, pointing to specific lines written by the doctor.
Advocate Valley argued that the text outlined specific triggers that could lead to a cascading negative reaction in Major General Khan, suggesting that being forced to meet an independent doctor could serve as a traumatic trigger.
The commissioner repeatedly rejected this interpretation, stating that the sentence cited by Advocate Valley simply did not make the point that an independent medical examination would have deleterious effects.
The chairperson reinforced that the legal team was making unsubstantiated submissions from the bar rather than relying on medical facts.
Recognizing that the panel would not accept the argument, Advocate Valley ultimately conceded the issue, leaving the conditions of the postponement entirely in the hands of the commission to decide whether an independent practitioner should be appointed immediately.
The legal team for Major General Khan attempted to rely on a specific date provided in the medical report to assure the panel that the delay would not be open-ended.
Advocate Valley cited the report of the treating doctor, who prognosticated that Major General Khan would be fit to participate in the inquiry on or around 1 October 2026.
Advocate Valley argued that this target date provided a structured timeline and a clear boundary for the commission to budget around, contrasting it with an endless delay.
The chairperson responded with skepticism regarding the proposed return date, openly stating that he would not hold his breath.
However, the chairperson agreed that if the commission were to adopt a ruling similar to the Mr. Karim matter by appointing an independent doctor, that step had to be taken immediately to avoid running out of time when the October timeline arrived.
The confrontation escalated dramatically as the panel turned its attention to severe allegations of fraud regarding backdated and altered medical certificates submitted on behalf of Major General Khan.
Advocate Valley directed the panel to official correspondence from Lieutenant General Khumalo, specifically referencing letters dated 24 July 2026 and 27 July 2026 on page-inated pages 218 and 219.
The legal team argued that paragraphs in the letters from Lieutenant General Khumalo operated as administrative instructions from the South African Police Service requiring the correction of medical notes and leave forms.
Advocate Valley asserted that when the son of Major General Khan approached Dr. Fine to alter the medical certificates, he was simply correcting clerical and administrative errors to match official requirements, rather than committing fraud.
The commissioners launched a scathing critique of the defense strategy, calling Advocate Valley‘s interpretation of the police correspondence completely unreasonable and nonsensical.
The panel emphasized that the letters from Lieutenant General Khumalo merely pointed out that Major General Khan was absent from work with unaccounted-for leave periods, unsigned medical forms, and missing end dates.
The commissioner explicitly stated that the South African Police Service was requesting completed temporary incapacity leave application forms and legitimate medical certificates for missing periods, such as 29 days and 45 days.
The panel firmly rejected the claim that these letters constituted an instruction to alter medical dates or doctor’s notes.
The commissioner expressed shock that counsel would suggest the police instructed an employee to obtain backdated medical certificates to reflect favorable records.
The panel further highlighted a sworn affidavit provided by Dr. Fine herself, which directly contradicted the narrative presented by the legal team.
In her affidavit, Dr. Fine stated that she believed she was merely resolving an administrative issue and was completely unaware of the true underlying purpose when she modified the documents.
The commissioner noted that the actions of the son of Major General Khan in approaching Dr. Fine to change the medical unfit-for-duty dates could not be excused or hidden behind the administrative queries sent by Lieutenant General Khumalo.
The panel insisted that the discrepancy between the official source documents and the altered certificates pointed directly toward misrepresentation and fraud, which fully justified the commission’s demand for an independent medical assessment.
Advocate Valley made a final attempt to argue against the finding of fraud, insisting that a disconnect between police records and source documents was merely an administrative oversight.
Advocate Valley stated that the legal team was willing to concede to an independent examination, but rejected the conclusion that Major General Khan or his representatives engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation.
The chairperson ended the debate by noting that the explanations offered by counsel failed to alter the facts on the record, leaving the commission to finalize its ruling on the postponement and the appointment of an independent medical examiner.
Copyright: Daily Updates ZA
