National Coloured Congress MP Fadiel Adams conceded that he misled the Madlanga Commission when he testified that he had not seen the request to testify on 3 October 2025 resulting in his late statement submission.

Earlier, Adams first appeared briefly at the Commission where his testimony could not proceed due to late submission. He argued that he received correspondence late.

Commission Chairperson Judge Mbuyiseli Madlanga presented Adams with a Rule 3 notice sent to him on 3 October 2025. The notice asked Adams to respond to allegations made against him by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.

During Mkhwanazi's testimony in September 2025, he told the commission that Adams had unauthorised access to crime intelligence information and had used it recklessly by pursuing charges against members of the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT).

Madlanga questioned Adams about his claim that he had only seen the commission’s Rule 3 notice three months ago. He said Adams had responded to the email and even requested to testify 72 hours after head of crime intelligence Dumisani Khumalo.

“If you responded to the commission’s Rule 3 notice only 11 days after it was sent to you, your response being on 14 October, you were not truthful when you said you had not received notice or you only saw the email communication three months ago,” said Madlanga.

Adams said he was out of the province when he received the email and believed it was important for him to testify after Khumalo, whom he had accused of fraud and corruption within crime intelligence.

“I sat here on the 11th and you told me that I wasn’t taking the commission seriously. It’s something that I disagree with even now,” said Adams.

“However, I will take full responsibility for all the confusion and all the delay regarding the emails that came. Parliament will know and they can deny it again so I can prove it again, that all email correspondence, even from the police portfolio, is sent to my administrator ... because my laptop does not respond 50% of the time,” said Adams.

“So for this, I apologise to you and everybody profusely. I will not run from this,” he said.

Madlanga pressed Adams on whether he had been untruthful when he said he saw the Rule 3 notice for the first time three months ago.

“Yes, chairperson, now that I have all the emails, even my response in front of me, yes, the information I submitted was wrong,” said Adams.

Adams said he had forgotten about the email and only remembered it during his discussion with the commission. Madlanga reminded him that he had received continuous reminders from the commission since April 2026.

“Even if you were to attempt to suggest not to have seen the emails of October 2025, this would have reminded you that there were emails of October 2025,” said Madlanga.

Evidence leaders then played a media interview in which Adams vehemently stated that he had not received correspondence from the commission and that he was the one who had approached it.

“I’m reading the Madlanga statement and it states that I was subpoenaed. It’s a lie, I was never subpoenaed,” Adams said in the interview.

“Do you take the commission seriously?” Madlanga asked.

“I am here. I arrived a day early, at my own expense, twice. I take this commission very seriously. I’m very respectful of this commission. Forget what I say on social media, that is me acting like a fool half of the time,” said Adams.

Madlanga then questioned Adams about Parliament’s statement disputing his claim that he had experienced longstanding problems with his laptop. He said Parliament had highlighted that its members were given three devices to avoid communication challenges.

Adams said he did not use the phone and tablet issued to him by Parliament because he believed they were susceptible to hacking.

“Parliament has just received a letter from my attorney that they retract, because Parliament told other lies. They said I’ve never emailed the speaker regarding the PKTT,” he said.

In another media interview played at the commission, Adams accused Parliament of defaming him and reiterated that his laptop had experienced technical problems.

Madlanga challenged Adams’ claim that he had provided proof that his laptop was not working.

“We should not take any reference to be proof that between October 2025 until three months ago your laptop was malfunctioning,” said Madlanga.