JUST IN: Madlanga commission to lay criminal charges against Feroz Khan over non-attendance [VIDEO]

· Citizen

The Madlanga commission erupted into confrontation as Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga rejected suspended Crime Intelligence deputy head Feroz Khan’s application for a postponement, ordering criminal charges to be laid against him for flouting a subpoena and warning that defying compulsory summonses strikes at the heart of the rule of law.

Khan’s absence

Khan was expected to appear before the commission at the Brigitte Mabandla Justice College in Pretoria on Monday, 28 September 2026.

Visit truewildslot.com for more information.

The senior Crime Intelligence official was originally scheduled to testify on 1 July. However, his appearance was delayed after he was shot in Houghton, Johannesburg, on 28 June. Khan was treated at Milpark Hospital and discharged in mid-July.

The Citizen previously reported on the extent of Khan’s injuries following claims that the attack may have been staged.

Despite being subpoenaed, Khan failed to appear again. His lawyer, Mohammad Vally, argued that Khan’s medical condition had regressed and sought a postponement.

Madlanga’s refusal

Justice Madlanga rejected the application outright, insisting that subpoenas must be respected. His frustration was evident as he pressed Vally repeatedly, refusing to accept excuses not backed by medical documentation.

“You did, you did, you did [flout the subpoena]. The subpoena stands, Mr Vally, come on. Are you saying the subpoena means nothing?”

When Vally attempted to defend his client’s absence, Madlanga cut him off sharply:

“Does the subpoena mean anything at all? It requires appearance, does it not?”

Vally conceded that subpoenas carry weight, but Madlanga pressed further:

“If we accept this, Mr Vally, then what is the point of a subpoena? It becomes a meaningless piece of paper.”

Criminal charges ordered

Madlanga confirmed that the commission’s secretary would be approached to lay criminal charges against Khan for failing to attend, even remotely.

“So his non‑appearance today is a flagrant disregard of a subpoena by this commission. And I repeat, it is unfortunate that his attorney associates himself with this disregard. I find that very, very unfortunate,” Madlanga said.

“The commission accepts what the psychiatrist, Dr Naidu, says that Mr Khan should appear remotely. His non‑appearance today is a flagrant disregard of a subpoena. The secretary, Dr Nolitha Vukuza, will be approached to lay criminal charges against Mr Khan,” He added.

Remote testimony

Madlanga questioned why Khan had not been placed in a venue where he could testify remotely, noting that the commission had made every effort to accommodate him.

“Why was he not on standby to testify remotely? The commission made every effort to accommodate him,” Madlanga asked.

Documentation dispute

Madlanga dismissed claims that Khan had received documentation late.

“The suggestion that he was given further documentation at a later stage is untrue. The evidence leaders clarify that it was basically the same set of documentation, but a more user‑friendly version. Any attempts at explaining why Mr Khan is not here are mere excuses, and I will not accept them,” he said.

Comparison with other witnesses

Madlanga noted that other witnesses had honoured subpoenas even when they had complaints about documentation.

“Without fail, all those witnesses would be sitting in the witness box, and their lawyers would raise the issue or the complaints. Why Mr Khan? And indeed, his lawyers for that matter? It completely escapes me,” Madlanga remarked.

Turning point

The refusal of Khan’s postponement application marked a turning point in the hearings. Madlanga made clear that subpoenas are binding instruments of law, not optional requests.

“The subpoena, and my ruling, stand on a different foot. They require Mr Khan’s attendance. If there are outstanding issues, those can be raised before this commission with Mr Khan in attendance. They can never excuse his absence,” Madlanga ruled.

Next Steps

Madlanga indicated that part of Khan’s testimony may still be heard on 6 October, if an application for in‑camera proceedings is granted. He stressed, however, that the postponement sought for a longer period was refused.

“That further reinforces my point that the postponement sought for a longer period is not granted. Any attempts at explaining why Mr Khan is not ready are mere excuses,” Madlanga said.

Madlanga Commission

The Madlanga commission is probing corruption, political interference, and criminality within South Africa’s justice system. Khan, as suspended deputy head of Crime Intelligence, is a central figure. His testimony is expected to shed light on alleged networks of influence and misconduct within law enforcement.

Evidence leader Adila Hassim described Khan’s absence as contemptuous, urging referral to the National Prosecuting Authority for possible contempt prosecution.

Ruling

Justice Madlanga’s ruling reinforced the commission’s authority and underscored the stakes of the inquiry. By refusing Khan’s postponement and ordering criminal charges, the commission signalled that it will not tolerate defiance of subpoenas.

“So his non‑appearance today is a flagrant disregard of a subpoena. And I repeat, it is unfortunate that his attorney associates himself with this disregard. I find that very, very unfortunate,” Madlanga concluded.

The ruling stands as a defining moment in the commission’s work, underscoring that compliance with subpoenas is non‑negotiable and that accountability will be enforced through criminal charges where necessary.

Read full story at source