State Questions Suliman Carrim’s Health As Bail Decision Looms

The state has questioned North West businessman Suliman Carrim’s explanations for his repeated absences from the Madlanga commission, arguing that his health concerns appear to arise when it suits him.

The allegation was made during closing arguments in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on Monday, 19 October 2026, as the prosecution opposed Carrim’s bail application, citing concerns that he might fail to attend future proceedings.

Carrim spent the weekend at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional Centre after being arrested at OR Tambo International Airport in Kempton Park, Ekurhuleni, last Thursday. He was preparing to board a flight to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Missed Commission Appearances Under Scrutiny

Carrim faces a charge of failing to appear before the Madlanga commission after a criminal complaint was lodged against him over alleged contempt of court.

He last testified before the inquiry on 9 and 10 March 2026 and was scheduled to return on 15 April. However, he allegedly suffered a heart attack two days before the scheduled appearance.

His repeated absences on health grounds between April and July raised concerns, and he was eventually ordered to appear in person on 14 August. He failed to attend and did not return to the inquiry.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Ekurhuleni City Manager Lerutla, Metro Police Deputy Chief Case Postponed

At the start of Monday’s proceedings, Advocate Hendrik Potgieter informed the court that his mandate to represent Carrim had been terminated after the businessman changed legal firms. Advocate Dawie Joubert subsequently took over the defence.

The state confirmed that Carrim’s residential address in Leopard Park, Mahikeng, had been verified. Prosecutor Donald Shiko also confirmed that Carrim held a return flight ticket dated 27 October 2026.

However, Shiko said these developments did not alter the state’s opposition to bail.

“I have also informed my colleagues further that, inasmuch as such were confirmed to be positive, the state is still opposing the release of the accused,” he told the court.

Shiko argued that Carrim’s conduct surrounding his absences remained a significant concern. He also pointed to the businessman’s response during cross-examination when asked whether he would attend proceedings if his health did not improve.

“This court, the very same court, could find itself in a position where the applicant does not remain in attendance of the proceedings,” Shiko said.

He added that Carrim had indicated he would not attend if his condition failed to improve, even if he were granted bail.

Prosecutor Challenges Carrim’s Credibility

In his closing submissions, Shiko questioned Carrim’s plans to leave South Africa and the circumstances surrounding his arrest at the airport.

The court heard that investigating officer Captain Kubayi had testified that Carrim’s passport was flagged and police were alerted to his intention to leave the country. Carrim was arrested at approximately 8.43pm.

The prosecution also alleged that Carrim had failed to disclose all his residential properties, claiming he owned two properties in Johannesburg and another in Cape Town, in addition to his home in Mahikeng.

“The applicant only gave [the police] his Mahikeng address,” Shiko argued.

The prosecutor further accused Carrim of changing his version of events when explaining why he had failed to return to the commission.

“The applicant was not a credible witness as he was tailoring his version to seek his narrative,” Shiko said.

“He was evading most questions put to him by the state.”

Shiko also challenged Carrim’s medical explanations, arguing that he had been able to testify in court the previous week and respond to questions despite maintaining that he had been unwell since April.

According to the prosecutor, Carrim said his doctor had advised against him being subjected to cross-examination. His legal representative nevertheless advised him to testify, given the implications of not doing so.

Shiko argued that similar advice had not resulted in Carrim returning to the commission to complete his testimony.

“The health of the applicant arises every time when it suits him, particularly under cross-examination,” the prosecutor said.

Defence Disputes Flight Risk Allegations

During his testimony, Carrim said he had planned to travel to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for “spiritual upliftment”. He maintained that his doctor had recommended the trip to help him manage stress, anxiety and panic attacks he had experienced over several months.

The businessman denied intending to remain outside South Africa and said he wanted to improve his health before returning to the commission to finish his testimony.

The court also heard that Carrim had previously received a “psychiatric diagnosis”, as disclosed during the commission’s proceedings.

The state raised concerns about the five bags of luggage he was carrying when arrested. Carrim said the bags mainly contained sweets and snacks intended for humanitarian purposes in Pakistan. He submitted his travel itinerary and return ticket in support of his explanation.

He also produced a South African Police Service (SAPS) clearance certificate to demonstrate that he had no criminal history. This followed the state’s allegation that he had previously faced fraud and negligent driving cases, which were later withdrawn.

Shiko further argued that the ongoing US-Israel war against Iran could have affected Carrim’s ability to return to South Africa had he successfully left the country. He said disruptions to airline operations in the UAE could have complicated the journey.

“The UAE has been affected by the ongoing war and, as such, most airlines were suspended and some were cancelled,” Shiko told the court.

The prosecutor contrasted Carrim’s willingness to undertake a journey lasting between 12 and 15 hours with his failure to attend commission proceedings that lasted approximately eight to 10 hours.

Joubert rejected the state’s arguments, maintaining that the prosecution had not established sufficient grounds to oppose bail.

“There must at least be substance and a greater deal of possibility that what they believe will happen,” the defence lawyer told the court.

Joubert pointed to the verification of Carrim’s residential address, his return ticket and what he described as the largely unchallenged nature of his client’s evidence. He also argued that Carrim had no outstanding cases against him.

The court postponed the matter until Wednesday, 28 October 2026, when judgment on the bail application is expected.