Brigadier Matjeng

facilitator of meetings between General Phahlane and Mr Matlala

Brigadier Matjeng served as Section Head of Quality Management within SAPS's Criminal Record and Crime Scene Management component, a role he took up in March 2024. His responsibilities included managing medical surveillance and biological monitoring programs for employees exposed to workplace hazards. Testifying before the commission, he stated that he became aware of the health risk manager contract only when the previous one, held by Metropolitan, was ending. He disclosed to his supervisor that he knew Mr Matlala and asked whether he should recuse himself from overseeing the medical surveillance program. Matjeng said he was not involved in any bid committees for the contract, and that his WhatsApp exchanges with Matlala concerned implementation challenges.

881 claims2 scheme(s)9 contradiction(s)

Schemes linked

SC0001Matlala / SAPS Health Risk Management / Medicare 24 con SC0014SAPS Medical Surveillance Contract Kickback Scheme

What the record shows (881 total claims — 150 substantive shown)

9 contradictions on the record

◎ Likely — AI-assisted, cited◆ Cross-witness

NLI-12845758a311

Same 100k request given two incompatible purposes: a 'specific function' vs paying a judgment on her name.

Day 55Mr Shirindzi“she required the money for a specific function”

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“I was requesting it to pay a judgment that was on my name.”

◎ Likely — AI-assisted, cited◆ Cross-witness

NLI-992ca1b2a2bf

One says overstepping happened only once; other says more than one occasion—cannot both be true of same conduct.

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“only one incident”

Day 55Adv Pooe“it was on more than one occasion that Brigadier agreed that she overstepped”

◎ Likely — AI-assisted, cited◆ Cross-witness

KNN-23648ed862dd

Same entity's awareness duration stated as both nine months (Oct-June) and six months; cannot both be true.

Day 54Chairperson“It is October to June.”

Day 54Brigadier Matjeng“It is six months.”

◎ Likely — AI-assisted, cited

NLI-c4ab873c3224

Same actor on same act: one says approaching the provider was overstepping/wrong, the other calls it the most plausible right move.

Day 54Brigadier Matjeng“I think I overstepped there. I was not supposed to approach the service provider.”

Day 54Brigadier Matjeng“the most plausible thing or what you have in your mind would have been to approach the service provider.”

◎ Likely — AI-assisted, cited

NLI-c7ec2a799081

Claim A says received no money; Claim B says started receiving money June 2019—same person, cannot both be true.

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“No, it did not”

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“I started receiving money from Mr Matlala in 2019, June 20”

◎ Likely — AI-assisted, cited

NLI-e33c7238683f

Same entity, same referent (Adv Pooe's characterisation): one explicitly disagrees, the other agrees—cannot both be true.

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“No, I do not agree.”

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“Yes.”

◎ Likely — AI-assisted, cited

NLI-aaffa9f74d79

A affirms it was (sad) for self; B denies it was sad for self — same referent, direct contradiction.

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“It was.”

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“It was not sad for me.”

◎ Likely — AI-assisted, cited

NLI-74bf05a97650

Claim A denies receiving financial benefit; Claim B admits receiving payments as a girlfriend allowance—cannot both be true.

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“No, I will not.”

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“No, I was receiving it as a girlfriend allowance. I did not do any favour for Mr Matlala. This, I was received as a boyfriend gifting a girlfriend .”

◎ Likely — AI-assisted, cited

NLI-3670f34e0cae

Claim B admits receiving payment as a gift, while Claim A denies receiving any financial benefit—both cannot be true.

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“No, I will not.”

Day 55Brigadier Matjeng“I was received as a boyfriend gifting a girlfriend .”