“IT’S NOT THERE AT ALL” | MADLANGA GRILLS OUPA SINDANE’S LAWYER OVER POSTPONEMENT
High-Stakes Legal Battle Erupts in Judicial Commission as Defense Fights to Block Leaked Criminal Evidence and Secure Medical Postponement
A dramatic legal showdown gripped the judicial commission as defense counsel Advocate Masuku, appearing alongside Ms. Mabuza and Mr. Sithole, launched an impassioned plea to secure a postponement and halt the public presentation of disputed evidence linked to Mr. Sindane.
The high-stakes hearing commenced with Advocate Masuku placing a fresh, unavoidable variable before the commissioners, submitting a formal medical certificate establishing that Mr. Sindane was medically unfit to attend the proceedings.
Advocate Masuku informed the panel that while notice of the medical issue arrived late the previous evening, the physical certificate was delivered that morning, providing a compelling, supervening ground that rendered Mr. Sindane‘s personal appearance impossible.
Justice Madlanga granted Advocate Masuku a dedicated 45-minute window to present oral arguments in support of the postponement without interruption, while allowing the state to place its counter-position on record.
Evidence leader Mr. Chaskalson addressed the commission prior to the timer starting, stating that the state did not contest the authenticity of the medical certificate, which indicated that Mr. Sindane was expected to remain unfit for duty until Sunday the 28th.
While accepting that Mr. Sindane‘s physical presence was unnecessary for the day, Mr. Chaskalson proposed a compromise: postpone the witness’s personal appearance to Monday the 29th, but immediately utilize the current day to publicly flight and record documentary evidence in his absence.
Taking the floor for his uninterrupted submissions, Advocate Masuku emphasized the profound public importance of the commission’s constitutional mandate to investigate governance failures, integrity breaches, and accountability breakdowns within the criminal justice system.
Advocate Masuku argued that precisely because the commission holds such vital constitutional weight, its investigative and adjudicative standards must remain exemplary, respecting procedural fairness, dignity, privacy, and the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Advocate Masuku outlined the narrow relief sought by Mr. Sindane, requesting a complete postponement until he regained full medical fitness, and crucially, until an urgent high court application set down for October 6 was heard and determined.
Detailing the core constitutional hazard, Advocate Masuku forcefully argued that publicizing private communications and evidence derived from police dockets while Mr. Sindane was an accused person in a separate criminal trial inflicted irreversible prejudice.
Advocate Masuku contended that streaming untested, one-sided material from police dockets into the public domain creates a parallel forum of public judgment, permanently damaging Mr. Sindane‘s section 35 constitutional rights to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence before a criminal court evaluates the merits.
He stressed that once private communications become national headlines, church sermons, and public discourse, the damage to public perception cannot be undone by later legal clarifications.
Addressing the pending high court review, Advocate Masuku noted that the commission itself, including Justice Madlanga, had been cited as respondents in the litigation challenging the DPCI-derived material.
While acknowledging that court applications do not automatically suspend commission proceedings under established legal precedents like Oderkirk, Advocate Masuku urged the panel to exercise judicial discretion to avoid taking irreversible steps before the high court adjudicated the constitutional questions on October 6.
Turning to the procedural history of the matter, Advocate Masuku defended the timeline of the postponement application, noting that constitutional objections were formally raised on August 7 and maintained on August 15, while formal notification was served on September 14 following the September 8 subpoena.
He rejected any inference of bad faith or dilatory tactics, maintaining that declining to place sensitive personal, spiritual, or legal matters into a televised public record does not constitute deliberate sabotage of the commission.
Addressing the default regarding the failure to file a formal witness statement, Advocate Masuku acknowledged the default with regret, explaining that unresolved legal objections concerning self-incrimination, private electronic materials, and constitutional rights heavily weighed against immediate compliance.
Advocate Masuku concluded his extensive submissions by urging the commissioners to weigh a manageable, short delay against the catastrophic, irreversible constitutional prejudice of broadcasting untested criminal docket evidence in a public forum.
The commissioners paused the proceedings to deliberate on the medical certificate, the state’s proposed evidence-flighting compromise, and the sweeping constitutional arguments advanced by the defense.
Copyright: MDNtv
