The state is also preparing to bring Vusimuzi 'Cat' Matlala back into the main case.
Suspended National Police Commissioner Fannie Masemola has asked the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to withdraw the charges he is facing in connection with the controversial South African Police Service (Saps)-Medicare24 tender scandal.
His case returned to the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on Friday, 28 August 2026.
The top cop appeared alongside Medicare24 Holdings managing director James George Murray (accused two), Captain Brian Cartwright (accused three), Matlala’s alleged girlfriend Brigadier Rachel Matjeng (accused four), Brigadier Alpheus Thembinkosi Ngema (accused five), Brigadier Patrick Nethengwe (accused six), Colonel Tumisho Nehemiah Maleka (accused seven) and Major-General Busisiwe Temba (accused 10).
Brigadier Kirsty Jonker (accused 11), Brigadier Petunia Lenono (accused 12), Brigadier Ofentse Tlhoale (accused 13), Colonel Nonjabulo Mngadi (accused 14), Colonel Anton Paulsen (accused 15) and Colonel Johannes Monyai (accused 16) have also been charged.
During Friday’s proceedings, defence lawyers confirmed that the state had disclosed the contents of the docket late last month.
Masemola’s legal representative also indicated that the team had approached the office of National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Andy Mothibi directly in an effort to have the prosecution against him reconsidered by submitting representations earlier this month.
“I have submitted our representations on the 7th of August directly to the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
“We would be delighted, your worship, if we can get an outcome of our representations before our next appearance,” his lawyer told the court on Friday.
A representation is a formal request allowing an accused person to ask the NPA to review the decision to charge them.
The development follows Mothibi’s indication that the charges against the suspended commissioner were already under review amid concerns about how the Investigative Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) handled the investigation.
While Masemola is seeking to have his prosecution brought to an end, the state is preparing to bring tenderpreneur Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala and his companies back into the main case.
Matlala, Medicare and Luxo Africa Brand Investments had previously been separated from the proceedings after entering into a plea agreement with the state.
That agreement, which was intended to see Matlala turn state witness, was subsequently nullified.
State prosecutor Santhos Manilall told the court that Matlala is due to appear in the Specialised Commercial Crimes Court in Pretoria on 11 September.
The state intends to re-join Matlala and his companies to the proceedings following the collapse of the plea deal.
Manilall also confirmed that the case will have to be transferred to a different court.
“I have canvassed this with my learned friends, and I have obtained a date in the regional court,” the prosecutor said.
The matter was postponed to 29 September and is expected to continue in the Pretoria Regional Court, with Matlala scheduled to appear alongside his co-accused.
Masemola is facing four charges in terms of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), rather than the corruption, fraud and money-laundering charges faced by several of his co-accused.
The charges stem from a health services tender awarded to tenderpreneur Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s company, Medicare 24 Tshwane District.
The broader procurement was valued at about R360 million, while the contract at the centre of the court proceedings has been described as a R228 million deal.
Investigators found the procurement process to have been irregular. At least R50 million was paid under the contract before Saps cancelled it in May 2025.
Masemola’s prosecution has also been questioned during proceedings at the Madlanga Commission.
Evidence presented to the commission suggested that Masemola was allegedly targeted by Idac as part of an effort to remove him from his position.
Former Idac head Andrea Johnson has disputed the allegation, although she concedes that Masemola should have been charged separately.
Johnson previously explained that Masemola was charged under section 38 of the PFMA in his capacity as the accounting officer of Saps.
The allegations include that he failed to prevent irregular and fruitless expenditure and is also accused of failing to stop payments under the contract despite allegedly being alerted to irregularities.
