Who Is Agrippa Khoza? Name Emerges in Madlanga Commission as Millions in Payments Come Under Scrutiny
The name Agrippa Khoza has emerged during the Madlanga Commission hearings as commissioners scrutinised proofs of payment involving nearly R3 million that were forwarded by businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala.
A previously little-discussed name has entered the spotlight at the Madlanga Commission after evidence concerning a series of financial transactions was placed under scrutiny.
During proceedings on 25 August 2026, the Commission questioned Matlala about proofs of payment, or POPs, that he had forwarded to Mr Msibi.
The payment records became significant after the Commission examined the identities appearing on the transactions and questioned why Matlala was in possession of the documents and why he had forwarded them.
According to the evidence discussed during the hearing, one of the recipients was identified as Agrippa.
The automated transcript renders the recipient’s name in different ways, including “Agrippa AM Causa”, “Okoza” and “Koza”. However, the exchanges clearly centre on an individual named Agrippa who was the recipient reflected in the payment records.
Maumela Name Appears as Recipient Reference
Another significant element of the evidence was the appearance of “M. Maumela” as the recipient reference.
The Commission was careful, however, to distinguish between the recipient reference and the person or entity that actually made the payment.
During the proceedings, it was explained that the appearance of Maumela’s name as a recipient reference did not necessarily mean that Maumela had made the payment.
The Commission said the payer was represented by the account holder reflected on the proof of payment.
This distinction is important because the evidence presented at this stage does not establish that Maumela personally transferred the money to Agrippa.
Matlala Questioned Over Why He Forwarded POPs
Attention then turned to Matlala and why he had forwarded the proofs of payment to Msibi.
Matlala told the Commission that he did not have an interest in the payments and could not remember why he had sent the documents.
He suggested that somebody might have asked him to forward them.
Commissioners pressed him on that explanation, questioning how he could have no recollection of why payment records involving substantial amounts of money had passed through his hands.
Matlala suggested that Msibi himself could potentially have requested the documents, although he could not definitively remember.
The Commission challenged the explanation, pointing out that such a scenario would seemingly require Msibi to know that Matlala had the payment records in his possession.
Matlala Points Commission Towards Agrippa
During the increasingly tense exchange, Matlala turned attention towards the recipient.
He suggested that investigators could identify the person reflected as the recipient and potentially establish what the payments concerned.
Matlala said that knowing who the recipient was might help him remember what the transactions were about.
The Commission, however, reminded Matlala that its immediate question was not what the money was for, but why Matlala had forwarded the proofs of payment.
Nearly R3 Million Discussed
The significance of the transactions increased when commissioners referred to the combined amount involved.
During questioning, the Commission referred to a total of nearly R3 million and expressed difficulty accepting that Matlala could have absolutely no recollection of why he was forwarding payment notifications involving such substantial amounts.
Matlala responded that seeing transactions involving millions of rand was not unusual in his business activities.
He said that if the money had belonged to him, he would have remembered it.
Commission Links Timing of Payments to Maumela Discussion
The hearing subsequently produced another potentially significant piece of context.
Commissioners referred Matlala to a communication from the same day as the payments in which he allegedly indicated that Maumela had nominated an account into which money was to be deposited.
The Commission noted that Matlala, Msibi and Maumela were discussing money and payments on the same day that Matlala was forwarding proofs of payment.
According to the Commission’s summary of the evidence, the recipient was Agrippa and Maumela was referenced.
That sequence prompted commissioners to question again how Matlala could remember nothing about the transactions.
The evidence, however, should not be interpreted as establishing that Maumela was the source of the payments. The Commission itself specifically distinguished the recipient reference from the account holder from which a payment originated.
Who Is Agrippa Khoza?
That is now one of the questions emerging from the evidence.
The Commission’s proceedings establish that an individual identified as Agrippa appeared as a recipient in the payment records being examined.
Matlala himself suggested that identifying the recipient could help investigators establish what the money was for.
However, the transcript examined by MDNtv does not establish the recipient’s broader political connections, the purpose of the payments, or whether the recipient committed any wrongdoing.
Those questions remain unanswered on the evidence contained in this portion of the proceedings.
The emergence of Agrippa’s name nevertheless introduces another potentially important figure into the complex network of financial transactions and relationships being examined by the Madlanga Commission.
MDNtv will continue monitoring the hearings for further evidence concerning the identity of Agrippa Khoza, the source and purpose of the payments, and the circumstances surrounding the proofs of payment forwarded by Matlala.
