The Madlanga Commission is set to pursue criminal charges against fired Crime Intelligence major general Feroz Khan after he failed to appear before the inquiry on Monday despite virtual accommodation.
Chair Mbuyiseli Madlanga dismissed Khan’s bid for a postponement, ruling that the former general disregarded a legitimately issued subpoena on the advice of his attorneys. Khan’s lawyer insists the absence was a misunderstanding rather than defiance.
Chair Pulls No Punches
“The commission’s secretary will be approached to lay criminal charges against Khan,” chair retired deputy justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga said.
“You have disregarded the subpoena,” Madlanga told Khan’s legal team.
The chair found that Khan, acting on the advice of his attorneys, ignored a subpoena that had been legitimately issued.
The decision followed another no show that left commissioners and legal teams waiting in vain.
The ruling means the dispute is no longer about the former general’s medical condition or his request for more time.
Medical Report Cleared Remote Testimony
An independent medical assessment had found Khan capable of giving evidence, provided he did so virtually.
The commission had effectively removed the physical attendance requirement, yet Khan still did not appear, either in person or by video link.
Madlanga questioned why Khan was not at the inquiry, or at another location equipped for a virtual hearing, if he was prepared to testify remotely.
Remote testimony has become a common feature of South African inquiries, allowing witnesses to give evidence from secure off site facilities.
The arrangement had been seen as a compromise that addressed the concerns raised about his health.
The unanswered absence prompted the pointed exchanges that preceded the ruling.
Defence Blames Misreading Of Report
Khan’s lawyer, Mohammed Valey, rejected any suggestion that his client had deliberately ignored the summons.
Valey told the commission the legal team had misinterpreted the independent assessor’s findings.
The defense maintained that the absence flowed from that misunderstanding rather than a decision to defy the inquiry.
That explanation did not persuade the chair, whose ruling treated the subpoena as binding.
Legal observers note that a misunderstanding defense can complicate, but not necessarily defeat, a charge of ignoring a subpoena.
The exchange between the chair and the defense team laid bare how far relations between the two sides have frayed.
Not The First No Show
The latest development follows a previous failure by Khan to appear before the commission.
His repeated absence has placed renewed focus on his obligation to comply with the inquiry’s summons.
Each missed appearance has deepened the standoff between the former general and the inquiry.
The commission has repeatedly stressed that its timetable depends on witnesses honouring their summonses.
The inquiry has been hearing evidence from a range of witnesses as it probes allegations within the criminal justice system.
Subpoena Powers Carry Real Teeth
Commissions of inquiry in South Africa have the power to summon witnesses and compel testimony.
Failing to comply with a subpoena can constitute a criminal offence.
Referrals of this kind place the decision to prosecute in the hands of the authorities.
Inquiries depend on cooperation, and enforcement powers exist precisely for moments of refusal.
The process serves as a reminder that attendance before such inquiries is a legal duty, not a courtesy.
Standoff Shifts To New Terrain
The commission intends to refer the alleged failure to comply with its subpoena for criminal action.
Khan now faces potential criminal proceedings over that failure.
Attention shifts to whether charges will ultimately be pursued and how his team responds.
His lawyers’ concession of a misreading may yet feature in any future proceedings.
Any prosecution would run in parallel with the inquiry’s ongoing hearings.
Witnesses who defy commissions risk not only charges but also damage to their public standing.
For the commission, enforcing compliance is essential to protecting the credibility of its work.