- The court holds that Carrim waited nearly three months before acting, creating his own urgency and disqualifying the matter from the urgent court.
- The summons compelling his attendance remained valid and binding, and he did not attempt to set it aside.
- Judge Fisher rules that a witness cannot impose conditions on the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry into Criminality, Political Interference and Corruption in the Criminal Justice System before testifying, making the interdict legally unsustainable.
The High Court in Johannesburg refused Suliman Carrim’s last-minute attempt to stop his compulsory appearance before the Madlanga Commission, finding that there were no genuine urgency and no legal foundation for the relief he sought.
Judge Denise Fisher treated the matter not as an emergency but as a last-minute litigation tactic aimed at postponing testimony before the commission chaired by Justice Mbuyiseni Madlanga. That characterisation proved decisive, resulting in the application being struck from the roll with punitive costs.
Delay that undermined the entire case
The court’s primary reason for rejection was timing. Carrim received a Regulation 10(6) notice in October 2025, informing him that he would be required to give evidence. Further summonses followed, making it clear that his attendance was compulsory and enforceable under law.
Despite knowing this, he did not immediately challenge the notice or approach the court. Instead, he waited for nearly three months and only launched an urgent application days before his scheduled appearance on 6 February 2026. Judge Fisher found that if he genuinely believed the notice was unlawful, he should have acted “in good time,” not at the 11th hour.
She recorded that three months had passed before an attempt was made “through the courts, to frustrate a lawful process days before the appearance is set to commence.” The judge stated in the judgment, "In the court’s view, that delay amounted to self-created urgency."
She further ruled, "Urgent court procedures are designed for unavoidable harm, not problems caused by a litigant’s own inaction. Because the urgency was manufactured, the matter did not qualify for urgent relief."
A summons cannot be negotiated
Even if urgency had been established, the court found that the substance of the application was legally weak. Carrim sought to make his attendance conditional on the Commission answering interrogatories, supplying extensive information, and recalling certain witnesses for cross-examination before he testified.
Judge Fisher held that this approach misconceived the nature of a commission of inquiry. "A commission is investigative and enjoys coercive powers. When a summons is issued, compliance is compulsory," she wrote.
The judge further wrote that the applicant was “actively placing unreasonable impediments in the way of the testimony which he will have to give before the Commission” and said his stance reflected “a lack of understanding” of the Commission’s legal role. Witnesses are not entitled to dictate the terms on which they will appear.
The judge warned that allowing such conditions would cripple the process. If every witness insisted on preconditions, “the process would be rendered impossible and the constitutional purpose for which it has been convened thwarted.”
The summons still stood
There was also a straightforward procedural defect that the court regarded as fatal. The summons requiring Carrim to appear on 6 February 2026 remained “extant, in force and valid,” and he had not attempted to set it aside.
That meant the legal obligation to attend still existed regardless of any broader review he planned under administrative law. Without directly attacking the summons itself, there was nothing for the court to interdict. As Judge Fisher put it, the legal position was simple and “it must be complied with.” This omission left the application fundamentally defective.
Court’s conclusion
Judge Fisher concluded that the case formed part of “a process of stalling of the inevitable.” The urgent application was therefore not a legitimate protection of rights, but another step aimed at delaying testimony before the Madlanga Commission.
Part A of the application was struck from the roll with costs on Scale C, including the costs of two counsel.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
