CARRIM AND BAIL: WHAT FLIGHT RISK REALLY MEANS By Donda Attorneys Inc. @AttorneysDonda Suliman Carrim faces a charge under section 6(1) of the Commissions Act for allegedly failing to appear before the Madlanga Commission. He was arrested at OR Tambo International Airport before boarding a UAE-bound flight. His bail hearing began on Friday, 16 October, and was postponed to Monday, 19 October 2026. He remains in custody. WHERE BAIL STANDS The State requested time to verify a return ticket produced in court. His lawyer opposed the postponement. The prosecution alleges he held a one-way ticket, which the defence disputes. The State also questions his residential addresses. These issues remain unresolved. BAIL IS A RIGHT, NOT A FAVOUR Section 35(1)(f) of the Constitution guarantees arrested persons the right to release where the interests of justice permit. Section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act governs bail. This is not a Schedule 5 or 6 offence, so the ordinary bail test applies. The court must balance personal liberty against the interests of justice, as explained in S v Dlamini; S v Dladla; S v Joubert; S v Schietekat 1999 (2) SACR 51 (CC). FLIGHT RISK: SECTIONS 60(4)(b) AND 60(6) Section 60(4)(b) concerns the likelihood of evading trial. Section 60(6) directs courts to consider personal ties, assets, travel documents, extradition arrangements, the strength of the case and other relevant factors. The State's argument: The airport arrest, disputed ticket and unverified addresses suggest flight risk. Prosecutors may also rely on allegations that Carrim failed to testify or undergo an independent medical assessment, despite claiming illness while preparing to travel abroad. The defence's argument: The journey was spiritual, a return ticket was produced, and the alleged offence carries a relatively modest penalty. The defence may emphasise his community ties, willingness to surrender his passport and the absence of any reported travel restriction. MONDAY: WHAT TO WATCH 1. The ticket: Was the return booking genuine, and when was it made? 2. Residential addresses: Can the State verify where Carrim lives? 3. Cross-examination: How does he reconcile his alleged illness with international travel? 4. The evidence: Does the State establish a genuine risk of absconding beyond the airport arrest? 5. Bail conditions: Could passport surrender, travel restrictions, reporting obligations and financial security adequately address that risk? The outcome will depend on the verified evidence. Strict bail conditions may address the State's concerns, but refusal remains possible if a substantial flight risk is established. A BALANCED VIEW An airport arrest raises legitimate questions, but does not automatically justify refusing bail. The charge's seriousness, potential punishment, personal circumstances and enforceable conditions all matter. Carrim remains presumed innocent. Whether he had sufficient cause for failing to attend the Commission is ultimately a trial issue. Bail is neither punishment nor acquittal. The decision must rest on evidence, not public anger. Justice must be done, and be seen to be done, for everyone. Donda Attorneys Inc. | Servant Leaders for Justice