Parliament’s committee to investigate Mkhwanazi’s allegations stalling

Parliament’s ad hoc committee investigating South Africa’s alleged police capture has completed the terms of reference necessary to begin the inquiry. However, it has yet to adopt them.

This comes after two sittings in which the committee tried to reach a consensus on the terms of reference, with several disagreements on issues such as legal counsel and classified information stalling the process.

Parliament set up an Ad Hoc Committee to probe Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s claims of police capture by a criminal syndicate.

Allegations include the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team, missing case dockets, blocked intelligence posts, a R360 million contract scandal, and IPID interference.

While they may have finally concluded the process to set the terms of reference, the committee has until 31 October to report back to Parliament on its findings.

The committee first sat down on 5 August to elect a chairperson, with the African National Congress’ (ANC’s) Soviet Lekganyane elected.

They then convened again on 14 August to begin drafting the terms of reference, which they picked up again on Monday, 18 August, in what became a ten-hour marathon meeting.

Tensions arise

One point of contention for the committee was the use of Parliament’s legal counsel, which was opposed by members of the MK Party (MKP) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).

“The internal legal team has demonstrated on numerous occasions that it lacks capacity to a certain extent. We have expressed our concerns here on the quality of work they give this committee,” MKP Sibonelo Nomvalo said.

However, the ANC disagreed, with MP Xola Nqola arguing that Parliament’s legal team should be used to minimise costs.

EFF leader Julius Malema taking issue with the legal team’s characterisation of Mkwanazi’s statement as “not evidence”.

Malema argued that the Committee was still in the process of drafting the terms of reference and had not yet defined what constituted evidence.

He found the remark dismissive and said it risked placing the Committee on the wrong footing.

Another point of contention was whether the committee was empowered to deal with classified information if it was presented with it.

ANC MP and chief whip Mdumiseni Ntuli asked how the committee would handle classified information if members were not adequately vetted.

“How do we interact with the classified information when we, ourselves, are not members of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence?” he said.

“Therefore, we have not gone through the process required by law before you can interact with the classified information.”

Ntuli said that MPs serving on the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence undergo a different vetting process than other MPs.

Neither the EFF nor the MKP supported Ntuli’s concerns, with the latter proposing that the committee establish a protocol for handling sensitive and confidential information instead.

After ten hours, the committee finalised the document. However, they did not to adopt the terms of reference until they had received the final reworked copy.

In the previous meeting, ANC MP Khusela Diko proposed that the Lekganyane have full control over how the witnesses are questioned.

“The National Assembly’s Constitutional Legal Services Office will present the evidence of witnesses to the committee. The chairperson shall be empowered to determine the sequencing in which witnesses are called to give evidence,” she proposed to the committee.

“Witness questioning is to be subject to reasonable limitations at the instance of the chairperson. The chairperson may impose limits, put a stop to irrelevant and repetitive questions.”

This was fiercely opposed by opposition MPs.

Committee’s lack of consensus criticised

On Monday, Democratic Alliance (DA) Member of Parliament and Chairperson of Parliament’s portfolio committee on Police argued that the committee’s lack of agreement is delaying a process that needs to begin urgently.

“Every day lost to procedural wrangling is a day that the rot inside the South African Police Service (SAPS) continues unchecked,” Cameron said.

“The allegations involve political interference, the sabotage of specialist task teams, the removal of case dockets, and collusion with organised crime.”

Cameron, who is a member of the ad hoc committee, added that the police can’t afford to waste time, while criminal networks exploit the vacuum.

In July, the DA MP said a Parliamentary enquiry would have a quicker turnaround time than the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.

“The advantage of some kind of Parliamentary inquiry is that it is something that can happen a lot quicker than other inquiries, is transparent, and allows for public participation,” he said.

In his statement on Monday, Cameron pointed to another point of contention between parties in the ad hoc committee: the questioning of labour unions in protecting compromised officers.

“Some parties appear reluctant to allow proper scrutiny of the role unions have played in protecting compromised officers within SAPS,” he said.

“Avoiding this issue risks weakening the credibility of the inquiry before it has even begun.”