Had Lieutenant-General Khumalo testified sooner it would have changed Ad Hoc Committee's approach
Had the Ad Hoc Committee investigating allegations made by SAPS KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner, Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, met head of crime intelligence Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo sooner, it may have changed their approach.
This was the view of ANC member of the Ad Hoc committee and chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, Xola Nqola, who said the committee would have benefited from hearing from Khumalo sooner.
Khumalo was testifying before the committee on Thursday on the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT), whose disbandment prompted the Ad Hoc committee investigation.
“The first thing is that the evidence of General Khumalo corroborates the evidence of General Mkhwanazi. There are a lot of issues that they are raising, which are actually the issues that were raised by General Mkhwanazi. It was just unfortunate that he got ill.
“I think in my view, we were supposed to have met him as part of the first batch of witnesses because the evidence he is producing in the Ad Hoc committee now suggests that we may have had a different approach in some of the witnesses that we have met, including Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala.
“He’s revealing a lot of things about Matlala that we didn’t really get the details of. I think we would have been better placed had we met him sooner, but of course, it was beyond his and our control that he got sick. But, I think the evidence that he’s bringing to the committee is actually assisting what the terms of reference are saying,” Nqola said.
“It’s a well-drafted statement. I was saying to my colleagues that whoever assisted him in drafting his statement actually knows how to draft a statement, because it’s a well-drafted statement that goes chronologically. It’s not all over the place.
“It deals with each and every aspect that we are dealing with here. So in my view, his testimony is helping us towards the finish line, and I think he’s assisting the work of the committee as he should be,” Nqola said.
Nqola said that the committee is very happy with where the witness testimonies have led them because the unexpected twists and turns have led them to call witnesses that they otherwise would not have.
“You will recall yesterday we had General Phahlane, who was generally not part of our primary programme. So it means that we have gotten a number of things that were not even mentioned in the 6th July press briefing.
“Of course, if it were for us, and we were given a longer time, we would have gone beyond. We even got to understand that there are two officials at IDAC who did this, and that with Paul O’Sullivan. So, as things stand, at least we have covered the ground in about 90% of the evidence that we are looking for.”
Nqola said that the recommendations that come from when the Ad Hoc committee is complete, will need to be an evolving situation as Parliament will have to task its own portfolio committees to follow up on specific issues relating to their mandate.
“The work of the Ad Hoc committee may end in February, but the work will not end because it means we must also monitor the progress, the implementation by the state law enforcement agencies, beyond our recommendations to the House. So the work won’t stop, but what will stop is the Ad Hoc committee.
He said that, as chair of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, he has noted the names of magistrates and IDAC officials that he will be following up on.
“Particularly IDAC, and it’s unfortunate because IDAC is a newly established entity to fight corruption. Now, to be compromised like this is something beyond our imagination. Even yesterday, that’s why I was asking the names of the people who are at IDAC who have been involved with Paul O’Sullivan, and I said to the committee secretary that we must do our own follow-up on what has been done.
“What has been the work of the SIU in these things? What has been the work of IDAC? What has been the contribution of NPA entirely? What has been the contribution of the judiciary in its entirety? So that we are able to follow up, so that parliament does not waste money after the house endorses the recommendations, then it ends there.
“We, as portfolio committees, are supposed to play oversight on what the executive will be doing after this – they must tell us, after the revelations, after the evidence that has been submitted here, why are people not arrested? They must give us regular updates.”
theolin.tembo@inl.co.za