Controversial businessman Cat Matlala has alleged during testimony before the Parliament ad hoc committee that his phone was tampered with and that police digitally manipulated his voice to create fabricated audio recordings later submitted as evidence. The allegations have not been independently verified, and police officials have not yet issued a response.
Matlala told the committee that the incident began when he was summoned to a Limpopo police station for questioning related to a business dispute. According to him, officers took possession of his mobile phone, claiming it needed to be examined for “relevant information”. He said the device was kept for several hours, and when it was returned he discovered unfamiliar files, altered messages and other irregularities he could not explain.
He further alleged that audio clips presented at the Madlanga Commission were falsified using digital voice-manipulation tools. Matlala argued that the speech patterns, tone and phrasing in the recordings did not match his own. “Those recordings were not my voice, and they were not my words,” he told the committee.
Digital-forensic experts consulted by local media say that both phone tampering and voice cloning are technically possible, but emphasise that only a formal, independent examination can determine whether any manipulation actually occurred. They note that without a forensic report, it is impossible to confirm or dismiss Matlala’s claims.
Reaction to the testimony has been divided. Some critics argue that Matlala’s contentious business background warrants caution in assessing his accusations. Others maintain that, if evidence was indeed altered and used before a commission, the matter demands transparent investigation.
Matlala has said he will file a formal complaint and request independent experts to analyse both his phone and the disputed audio files. Repeating his belief that “his phone was tampered with”, he said the situation has left him anxious about his security and reputation.
The Independent Police Investigative Directorate has not confirmed whether it will open an inquiry. For now, the claims remain unproven, but the testimony has intensified national debate on digital evidence integrity.
