The Feroz Khan File: The Shooting, The Sick Notes And The Questions Hanging Over His Madlanga Commission Testimony

Major-General Feroz Khan was due to face the Madlanga Commission on Tuesday. Instead, questions over his medical condition, disputed sick-note dates and the circumstances surrounding his shooting have pushed his testimony into September.

Major-General Feroz Khan has yet to give evidence before the Madlanga Commission.

For a senior Crime Intelligence officer whose testimony is expected to touch on matters central to the commission's investigation into alleged criminality, political interference and corruption in the criminal justice system, the delay has become a story in its own right.

Khan was scheduled to appear before the commission on Tuesday, 1 September 2026, after his earlier appearance was postponed following his shooting in Houghton, Johannesburg, on 28 June.

He did not appear.

Instead, the commission was presented with another request for a postponement and a dispute over medical evidence that has now become central to determining when, and under what circumstances, Khan will testify.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Godfrey Lebeya To Testify At Madlanga Commission Over Katiso Molefe Arrest

The commission has postponed his evidence until 28 September 2026 at 09h30, but the postponement is not unconditional. Khan must undergo an independent medical assessment if he is to be excused from appearing on that date.

The development has brought together three separate threads: a reported attempted assassination, a continuing dispute over Khan's medical condition and questions surrounding changes made to medical certificates submitted in connection with his absence from work.

The commission is now attempting to separate those issues from the fundamental question before it: is Major-General Feroz Khan medically unable to testify?

A Shooting Before A Crucial Appearance

Khan's appearance before the commission had already attracted considerable attention before the shooting.

He had been expected to testify about matters falling within the commission's investigation into the conduct of senior law-enforcement officials and the handling of sensitive criminal investigations.

Then, on the night of 28 June, Khan was shot in Houghton.

The South African Police Service subsequently announced a high-level investigation into what it described as the attempted assassination of the senior Crime Intelligence officer. The investigation involved the Gauteng Hawks, Gauteng Crime Intelligence and the SAPS Detective Service.

Khan was taken to Milpark Hospital in Johannesburg in a critical condition.

Details contained in subsequent Labour Court papers described serious injuries, including abdominal trauma and internal bleeding. Reports based on those papers said he underwent surgery and was later treated for psychological trauma associated with the shooting.

His shooting inevitably affected the commission's timetable.

But the circumstances surrounding his health later became more complicated.

The commission's concern is not simply whether Khan was injured. It is whether the medical information placed before it provides a reliable basis for excusing him from giving evidence.

That distinction has become increasingly important.

The Sick-Note Dispute

The controversy intensified when questions about Khan's medical certificates emerged in a separate Labour Court dispute involving him and the South African Police Service.

One medical certificate stated that Khan was medically unfit and booked off work until 30 June 2026.

Another certificate later submitted by his doctors contained a different date: 27 June 2026.

Both documents referred to his medical condition.

But the difference in dates attracted the attention of the Madlanga Commission because Khan was shot on 28 June.

The timing raised questions about why the date had changed and whether the alteration had any connection to the circumstances surrounding the shooting.

General Dumisani Khumalo, the head of Crime Intelligence and Khan's direct superior, raised the issue in court papers relating to Khan's application for incapacity leave.

Khumalo argued that the change in the dates could potentially have raised questions about Khan's whereabouts and activities on the night of the shooting because the original certificate covered the period during which he was attacked.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: UN Watchdog Raises Alarm Over Reported Racist Hate Crimes Against Migrants In South Africa

These are allegations and arguments contained in legal proceedings, not findings that Khan deliberately manipulated his medical records.

That distinction is important.

The commission has not established that Khan fabricated his illness, nor has it concluded that the shooting itself was staged.

Instead, the discrepancies have prompted a more basic question about the reliability of the medical information being presented to the inquiry.

The Doctor's Affidavit

The issue moved closer to the centre of Tuesday's proceedings when evidence leader Advocate Adila Hassim referred to an affidavit from Khan's treating doctor, Dr Fine.

According to Hassim, Fine acknowledged that he had altered one of Khan's medical certificates.

Fine said Khan's son had requested changes to the document, including a change to the date on which Khan was considered fit to return to work.

The doctor also said he had added a diagnosis referring to extreme stress and symptoms of depression and anxiety.

The significance of the affidavit for the commission was not necessarily the medical diagnosis itself.

It was the fact that a document being relied upon in determining Khan's incapacity had been altered.

Hassim argued that the circumstances made an independent medical assessment necessary.

The commission, she said, needed an assessment of Khan himself rather than relying solely on communications between the inquiry and his treating doctor.

That argument went to the heart of Tuesday's dispute.

The question was no longer simply whether Khan had a doctor who believed he was unfit to testify.

The question was whether the commission should accept that assessment without an independent examination.

Khan's Legal Team Pushes Back

Khan's lawyer, Muhammed Vally, disputed the suggestion that the changes to the medical certificates amounted to something improper.

His explanation was that the certificates had been revised after SAPS requested further information concerning Khan's incapacity to work.

Vally also raised concerns about Khan's medical privacy.

His client, he said, had been shot by unknown assailants and was entitled to have sensitive medical information protected.

That concern presents the commission with a difficult balancing act.

On one side is Khan's right to medical privacy and the confidentiality of sensitive information.

On the other is the public interest in the work of a commission of inquiry, particularly one examining allegations involving senior officials within the criminal justice system.

The commission ultimately sought a middle ground.

It did not simply accept the medical information presented to it.

But neither did it order Khan to undergo an examination against his wishes.

Instead, the commission made the possibility of a further postponement conditional on Khan voluntarily undergoing an independent assessment by a medical specialist agreed upon by his representatives and the commission's evidence leaders.

What The Commission Has Ordered

The arrangement is now clear.

Khan must provide his affidavit responding to questions from the commission by 18 September.

If he wishes to be excused from appearing on 28 September, he must voluntarily undergo an independent medical evaluation.

The parties must agree on the independent medical specialist by 8 September.

That specialist must then provide a report confirming whether Khan is unable to testify on 28 September.

If the assessment establishes that he cannot appear, the commission will have the medical basis necessary to consider excusing him.

If it does not, Khan is expected to appear and testify in person.

The commission has therefore shifted the debate away from competing medical certificates and towards an independent assessment of the person at the centre of the dispute.

Why Khan's Evidence Matters

The postponement matters beyond the question of one witness missing one hearing.

Khan occupies a senior position within Crime Intelligence, an institution whose operations are inherently sensitive and whose role has come under scrutiny during the commission's proceedings.

His evidence has been anticipated in the context of allegations and questions surrounding the conduct of senior law-enforcement officials.

Earlier proceedings have also placed Khan's name in connection with allegations concerning the handling of intelligence and criminal investigations.

Those allegations must be tested through evidence and due process.

Khan has not yet had the opportunity to answer the commission's questions under oath.

That is why his eventual appearance could be significant.

A commission of inquiry is not a criminal trial, but its hearings are designed to establish facts, test competing accounts and examine conduct in the public interest.

Until Khan gives evidence, important questions remain unanswered.

The Bigger Question

There is an uncomfortable irony in the dispute.

The Madlanga Commission exists partly because of concerns about accountability within institutions responsible for combating crime and protecting the public.

Khan, a senior Crime Intelligence officer, is himself a potentially important witness in that process.

Yet his testimony has repeatedly been delayed.

The first postponement followed a shooting that police investigated as an attempted assassination.

The subsequent delays have centred on his medical condition.

And now the medical documentation used to explain those delays has itself come under scrutiny.

None of this, on its own, establishes wrongdoing by Khan.

Nor does the existence of questions about his medical certificates invalidate the seriousness of his reported injuries.

But the accumulation of unresolved issues has created a situation in which the commission can no longer rely solely on competing accounts of Khan's fitness.

It wants an independent answer.

The Road To 28 September

For now, the next important date is 8 September.

By then, Khan's representatives and the commission's evidence leaders are expected to agree on an independent medical specialist.

The next deadline is 18 September, when Khan must submit his affidavit responding to the commission's questions.

Then comes 28 September.

That is when Major-General Feroz Khan is scheduled to appear before Judge Mbuyiseli Madlanga and give evidence in person.

Whether he does so will depend, at least in part, on what the independent medical assessment finds.

Until then, the central questions remain open.

What exactly happened on the night Khan was shot?

What is the full explanation for the changes to his medical certificates?

Is he medically capable of giving evidence?

And, perhaps most importantly for the commission, what does Khan know about the matters it has been established to investigate?

Those questions cannot be answered by another postponement.

Eventually, they will have to be answered by Khan himself.