Ramaphosa’s former adviser summoned to Madlanga commission

Bejani Chauke has been served with a Rule 10.6 notice by the Madlanga commission of inquiry. He must explain his relationship with the late Mpumalanga taxi boss Jotham “King Mswazi” Msibi. He must also address their extensive WhatsApp exchanges. The notice was issued on 27 October 2026.

The commission became interested after examining Msibi’s cellphone records. Those records showed connections involving taxi interests, police officers and high-profile officials. The messages allegedly discuss state security, confidential presidential briefings, senior crime intelligence officials and substantial financial gains. Chauke’s exchanges date from 2022 and 2023, when he was President Cyril Ramaphosa’s political adviser.

Chauke is consulting legal advisers and is expected to respond within 10 days. It is not yet clear whether he will answer in writing through lawyers or testify publicly. His name also arose in evidence from former Hawks head Lieutenant General Godfrey Lebeya about requests for updates on the Phala Phala investigation.

A Rule 10.6 notice is, in this case, a formal procedural step by the Madlanga commission. It tells Bejani Chauke that matters connected to the inquiry require his response. The source does not provide the rule’s exact wording or full legal powers, so its precise requirements cannot be stated from the article alone.

The notice concerns Chauke’s relationship with Jotham “King Mswazi” Msibi and their WhatsApp exchanges. It follows the commission’s examination of Msibi’s cellphone records. The messages allegedly involve state security, confidential presidential briefings, senior crime intelligence officials and substantial financial gains. Chauke was Ramaphosa’s political adviser when many exchanges occurred.

Chauke is consulting legal advisers and is expected to respond within 10 days. He may provide written answers through lawyers, but the commission could still require public testimony. Whether that happens remains unclear. In general, a commission uses notices, documents and witness evidence to investigate matters and develop findings.

The evidence has several layers rather than one stated total. The commission is examining leaked messages from Jotham “King Mswazi” Msibi’s phone. It is also scrutinising exchanges between Msibi and Bejani Chauke dating back to 2022 and 2023. The article does not give the number of messages, records or people involved.

The cellphone material allegedly connects Msibi with police officers and high-profile officials. The exchanges reportedly touch on state security, confidential presidential briefings, senior crime intelligence officials and substantial financial gains. The evidence also allegedly points toward governance issues, intelligence links and government tenders. This makes the phone records a possible map of relationships and information flows.

The commission is trying to determine what these connections mean. It is examining whether an influential network operated behind the scenes and outside formal state structures. Chauke’s response may clarify his role, while testimony from Lieutenant General Godfrey Lebeya adds another line of inquiry. The article does not say when the investigation will end.

Jotham “King Mswazi” Msibi was a late Mpumalanga taxi boss. The commission is examining his cellphone records because they contain links reaching beyond the taxi sector. Those links reportedly include police officers and high-profile officials. His relationship with Bejani Chauke is especially important because Chauke served as Ramaphosa’s political adviser during the period covered by their messages.

The phone material allegedly includes discussions about state security, confidential presidential briefings, senior crime intelligence officials and substantial financial gains. It may also show connections involving governance and government tenders. These details matter because they could indicate how information, access or influence moved between private relationships and public institutions.

The commission has not yet publicly established what the exchanges prove. Evidence presented so far only suggests an influential network operating behind the scenes and outside formal state structures. Chauke’s response, possible testimony and further examination of the records may help establish the nature of Msibi’s relationships with officials and whether any improper conduct occurred.

A commission of inquiry is an official process created to investigate important questions by collecting documents, electronic records and witness testimony. Its purpose is to establish facts and assess how events or relationships operated. In this case, the Madlanga commission is examining Msibi’s cellphone evidence, alleged networks and related conduct involving officials.

The commission can question people such as Bejani Chauke and consider evidence from former Hawks head Lieutenant General Godfrey Lebeya. It can also scrutinise leaked WhatsApp messages, including exchanges from 2022 and 2023. The inquiry is testing claims about state security, confidential presidential briefings, crime intelligence and government tenders.

After gathering evidence, a commission generally produces findings and recommendations. The article does not state the Madlanga commission’s final powers or expected outcome. Depending on its mandate and findings, matters could be referred to relevant authorities for further investigation or action. A commission’s findings do not automatically establish criminal guilt; separate processes may be required.

If messages showed that confidential state information or government tenders were handled through unofficial networks, the issue could become more than a question of personal relationships. It could raise concerns about unauthorised disclosure, conflicts of interest, improper influence or unfair access to public contracts. The article says the messages allegedly involve these areas, but does not establish wrongdoing.

For example, the leaked exchanges allegedly discuss confidential presidential briefings, senior crime intelligence officials and substantial financial gains. They may also point to links with government tenders. If verified, investigators would need to examine who shared information, who benefited, whether official procedures were bypassed and whether public decisions were affected.

Possible consequences could include further testimony, internal disciplinary action, criminal investigation or referrals to other authorities. The precise outcome would depend on the commission’s mandate and the evidence. A notice or inquiry finding is not itself a conviction. Chauke’s response and any public testimony may help determine whether the alleged network involved improper conduct.

Formal institutions matter because they provide recognised channels for using public power. The presidency, police and intelligence services are expected to handle decisions and sensitive information through defined responsibilities. Those structures make it easier to identify who authorised an action, review it and hold the correct person accountable.

The commission is examining messages that allegedly involve state security, confidential presidential briefings, senior crime intelligence officials and government tenders. If influential people handled such matters privately, outside formal structures, decisions could become harder to track. Access might depend on personal relationships rather than official duties, while public money or sensitive information could be exposed to improper influence.

The article does not conclude that this happened. It says the evidence may point to a network operating behind the scenes. The inquiry’s work is therefore important for establishing facts. Chauke’s response, possible testimony and examination of Msibi’s records may show whether official institutions were bypassed or whether the communications had another explanation.