PRETORIA – The Democratic Alliance (DA) is calling for urgent transparency from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) regarding its controversial plea agreement with alleged underworld figure Vusimuzi Matlala. DA Member of Parliament and former prosecutor Glynnis Breytenbach has heavily criticized the proposed sentence in the Medicare24 tender case, labeling it a “slap on the wrist” that misleads the public about the actual time the accused will serve behind bars.
The NPA has defended the plea bargain, arguing that the agreement is a strategic move to pursue individuals higher up the criminal chain. However, the process has drawn sharp criticism after the plea deal document was made public before a judge officially signed off on it to make it an order of the court. While the internal machinations of the negotiation belong to the NPA, Breytenbach insists the prosecuting authority must explain the rationale to the public once the process is finalized.
Addressing the legal framework, Breytenbach clarified the purpose of Section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act. She emphasized that the mechanism was never designed as a “soft option” or an easy way to dispose of long, difficult cases. Instead, it is intended for individuals who genuinely show remorse, or for those who, facing a watertight case, attempt to save themselves by providing evidence against their co-accused.
Despite the intended use of the law, Breytenbach argues the specific sentence suggested for Matlala is a “joke.” While the NPA has stated Matlala faces 15 years in prison, Breytenbach points out that seven of those years are suspended, leaving an eight-year prison term. Furthermore, she notes that under current regulations, he could qualify for correctional supervision after just three years, meaning he would be released to house arrest.
“They don’t tell the public that this plea deal doesn’t mean eight years in prison. It means, at the very most, three years in prison,” Breytenbach stated.
She criticized the NPA for not being upfront about this reality, especially concerning charges of fraud, corruption, and money laundering involving amounts ranging from R50 million to R250 million. Additionally, she raised concerns about the legal structure of the agreement, which appears to reinstate the suspended sentence if Matlala fails to provide the desired evidence or testify against his former associates. Breytenbach argued that such conditional arrangements are poorly drafted and legally questionable, stating, “You can’t contract like that.”
When questioned about Parliament’s power to oversee these backroom negotiations, Breytenbach clarified that the NPA is an independent constitutional institution. Parliament does not seek to interfere with its operational mandate, nor does she. However, she maintained that the DA is demanding full disclosure to ensure the NPA has considered all the ramifications of what she views as a flawed document and is willing to tell the public the truth about the sentencing realities.
