BAIL BID: Did Suliman Carrim tailor his evidence? Magistrate wants transcripts before bail judgment

Businessman and ANC member Suliman Carrim will spend another week behind bars after the magistrate hearing his bail application requested transcripts to determine whether he changed his evidence under cross-examination. 

Magistrate John Curlewis postponed the bail judgment to Wednesday, 28 October 2026, after the State argued that Carrim tailored parts of his testimony when questioned about his health, his planned trip to Pakistan and his failure to personally inform authorities that he intended to leave the country.

Carrim was arrested at OR Tambo International Airport on 15 October as he prepared to travel to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan via Dubai, carrying five “voluminous” bags of luggage. 

The State says his conduct before his arrest, together with his previous failure to appear before the Madlanga Commission, raises questions about whether he can be trusted to return to court if released.

Carrim, who took the stand on Friday, maintained he had no intention of fleeing and planned to return to South Africa, providing the court with a return ticket that he had not initially given to the officers who arrested him.

State prosecutor Donald Shiko told the court that Carrim’s answers shifted when his version was tested during cross-examination.

“This also, I submit, shows that the applicant was changing his evidence to suit his version. I put to him that I would argue that he was changing his version and tailoring it in cross-examination,” Shiko said.

The Pakistan trip

Much of the State’s case centres around Carrim’s conduct before his arrest, with Shiko arguing that he knew he was expected to report his movements but failed to disclose his planned trip.

“On 15 October 2026, he knew that he was supposed to record his movements. However, he willingly chose not to do so,” Shiko said.

Carrim disputed that the trip showed any intention to evade proceedings, telling the court that he had travelled to Saudi Arabia for the past 16 years and had always returned to South Africa.

The State was not convinced.

“The fact that the return ticket is only useful if the person boards the plane [does] not serve as a guarantee that the person would be on the flight,” Shiko said.

Carrim testified that he knew his passport had been flagged and believed officials at the airport would alert the investigating officer when he travelled, but the State argued this did not amount to personally informing investigators of his plans.

Too ill to appear, but fit to fly

Carrim’s health is another factor the State is relying on in opposing his release on bail. He previously cited his medical condition as the reason for failing to appear before the Madlanga Commission, telling the court that he suffers from a heart condition, panic attacks, anxiety attacks and blackouts.

The State questioned how Carrim could be too ill to sit through commission proceedings lasting about eight hours, but well enough to undertake an international trip of between 15 and 16 hours.

Shiko also pointed out that Carrim had managed to sit through lengthy court proceedings over the past week and appeared to be in good health.

When asked whether he would attend future proceedings if his health improved, Carrim initially was doubtful and said this would depend on his doctor’s advice. Pressed on whether he would attend if his condition did not improve, he said: “It will depend on my condition.”

Shiko also questioned Carrim about whether his health had improved since April this year. This was after he previously testified that he was getting better. He responded that he had said he was “trying to get better” or getting much better before his arrest. 

The State argued this was another example of Carrim adjusting his evidence when confronted with a contradiction.

State says Carrim could evade proceedings

Shiko argued that the State did not have to prove Carrim would definitely flee, but only that there was a real probability that he could evade proceedings.

Another issue raised by the State was that it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to bring Carrim back to South Africa if he left the country and refused to return, despite South Africa having an extradition treaty with the United Arab Emirates.

Carrim’s previous failure to appear before the Madlanga Commission was also raised, particularly because the criminal charge he faces relates to conduct also being examined by the commission.

“The nature of the offence that the applicant has been charged with, in its nature, has elements of undermining or jeopardising the objective or the proper functioning of the criminal justice system,” Shiko said.

Defence says State has not proved flight risk

Carrim’s lawyer, Dawie Joubert SC, rejected the State’s argument that his client had deliberately failed to report his travel plans, saying prosecutors had failed to show that Carrim was ever clearly instructed to personally inform an investigating officer before leaving the country.

Joubert said the State could not establish when the instruction was given, who gave it or which officer Carrim was expected to contact, describing the issue as a “grey area”.

“The mere fact that he knew that there’s a possible charge pending against him, it doesn’t place on him any obligation of any sort that he may inform an investigating officer, who he didn’t know, that he plans to go on a trip and would return,” Joubert argued.

The defence said Carrim had no previous convictions, was an established businessman earning about R200,000 a month and had substantial ties to South Africa.

Joubert argued that the court was not being asked to determine Carrim’s guilt, but whether he could be trusted to return and face trial.

“But as the court knows, bail application is not a mini trial. The court here needs to be persuaded that an accused will stand his trial, that he is not a flight risk and that he will not interfere with the criminal justice system,” he said.

Carrim had also handed his passport to the investigating officer on the day of his arrest and undertaken to remain available for proceedings.

“What must an accused person do more? You can simply tell the court, ‘I will not flee. I will stand my trial… and I will not interfere.’”

Joubert argued that Carrim remained presumed innocent and that the State had not presented sufficient grounds to keep him in custody.

The defence asked the court to release Carrim on bail of up to R50,000. DM