Tactical Escape or Legal Trap: Understanding the Case of Suliman

The ongoing legal drama surrounding North West businessman Suliman Carrim and the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has sparked intense debate over legal strategy, rights, and accountability in South Africa.

The Madlanga Commission, chaired by retired Constitutional Court Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, was established to investigate serious allegations of corruption, tender manipulation, and political influence within South African law enforcement agencies. As a prominent figure linked to controversial financial transactions, Carrim was summoned as a key witness to testify about his business dealings and answer critical questions.

For several months, Carrim failed to appear before the commission, citing severe health issues and medical hospitalization. However, tension escalated when evidence leaders presented geo-location data and investigative reports showing Carrim visiting shopping centers and restaurants during periods he was allegedly too ill to attend hearings. In response, the commission ordered Carrim to undergo an evaluation by an independent medical specialist. Carrim refused to consent to the independent evaluation and once again failed to show up.

Faced with this refusal, Justice Madlanga directed the secretary of the commission to lay formal criminal charges against Carrim for breaching the Commissions Act. The commission declared that it would no longer delay its proceedings waiting for Carrim to appear.

This development led some observers to suggest that Carrim achieved a tactical victory. The logic behind this view relies on a key difference between statutory inquiries and criminal court proceedings under South African law.

In a Commission of Inquiry, witnesses are legally compelled under the Commissions Act to attend and answer questions. They cannot simply choose to remain silent to avoid answering uncomfortable questions about their conduct. In contrast, Section 35 of the South African Constitution guarantees that every accused person in a criminal trial has an absolute right to remain silent and cannot be forced to testify against themselves. Based on this distinction, some argue that by forcing the dispute into the criminal justice system, Carrim successfully gained the ability to invoke his right to silence.

However, viewing this outcome as a legal victory misses the broader picture of legal exposure in South Africa.

First, ignoring a statutory subpoena or refusing a lawful directive from a state commission is itself a criminal offence under the Commissions Act. By refusing the independent medical evaluation and failing to appear, Carrim did not escape legal accountability. Instead, he added a fresh layer of criminal prosecution directly against himself for defying the inquiry.

Second, avoiding the commission does not pause or neutralize the evidence already gathered. The Madlanga Commission will proceed using the existing testimonies, bank records, and financial documents collected by evidence leaders. By refusing to testify, Carrim forfeits his chance to challenge incriminating testimonies, cross examine witnesses, or present his side of the story. The commission can still issue official findings implicating him, which can then be handed over to the National Prosecuting Authority for further criminal charges.

Finally, while the right to remain silent exists in a criminal court, the state does not need an accused person to speak in order to secure a conviction. Independent documentary evidence, transaction logs, and witness accounts are routinely used to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Choosing to face criminal charges for defying a statutory inquiry while leaving damaging evidence unrefuted before a public commission is not a victory. While it may temporarily delay answering questions directly, it escalates an individual's legal trouble into formal criminal prosecution and leaves the surrounding allegations intact.