JOHANNESBURG - Legal expert Ulrich Roux said the plea agreement entered into by alleged criminal kingpin Vusimuzi "Cat" Matlala should not be viewed as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The State said Matlala has drafted a statement that disclosed the involvement of several high-profile people involved in the matter and other such matters.
He has turned state witness and pleaded guilty to fraud, corruption and money laundering charges linked to a R228 million SAPS tender.
Matlala made a brief appearance in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on Thursday.
The State and Matlala agreed that the court deviates from the minimum sentence and that the businessman's sentences run concurrently.
READ | 'Cat' Matlala turns state witness in R228m SAPS tender corruption case
The agreed sentence is expected to be 15 years' imprisonment with seven years suspended.
Roux explains that in terms of a guilty plea, one can plead guilty either in terms of Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act or Section 105.
In this case, Matlala has pleaded guilty in terms of Section 105.
"In terms of that clause of the Criminal Procedure Act, all the parties are in agreement as to the terms of the guilty plea. But furthermore, they are also in agreement with the sentence that will be handed down. And that is where things seem to have unravelled a bit today in court, "he said.
Matlala hasn't been convicted, as the magistrate still wants to consider whether the proposed sentence in the plea deal is just.
This saw the matter being postponed.
In exchange for what could be a reduced sentence, Matlala will be expected to provide the State with information about high-ranking officials.
"The terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act are very particular in that a person will only receive indemnity in terms of this section if the testimony that they provide is found to be truthful and honest, and if they indeed will withstand scrutiny and cross-examination during the trial when they are going to testify," Roux said.
Roux said the court is well within its rights to revoke his Section 204 status if it finds that his testimony was not credible and dishonest whilst testifying.