As the Ad Hoc Committee investigating allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi prepares for next round of proceedings with new witnesses, questions are being asked whether it is serving its intended purpose.

This takes place as forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan, who is scheduled to give testimony on Tuesday and Wednesday, prefers to give evidence virtually.

O’Sullivan, who is in London, has cited concerns regarding his safety, but the Ad Hoc Committee wants him to appear before it.

Amid indications O’Sullivan’s refusal to appear, Committee chairperson Soviet Lekganyane said on Thursday in the event they were unable to get him on stage, there should be other activities happening on those days.

“If we don’t have him, the public submissions and civil society organisations that are appearing should know and have that information by close of business tomorrow.

“We must not miss those two days. We no longer have time on our side,” he said when wrapping the proceedings on Thursday.

This was after the committee spent three days hearing evidence from former Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) head Robert McBride and Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department deputy chief Julius Mkhwanazi.

Their appearances had been marred with drama and heated exchanges.

The tone was set off by a spat between EFF MP Leigh-Ann Mathys and DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach during the introduction of MPs, prompting Lekganyane to ask the pair to smoke the peace pipe to no avail.

McBride cautioned MK Party MP Sibonelo Nomvalo to “watch it” during questioning about a court case involving his daughter.

MPs accused him of undermining the Ad Hoc Committee as members expressed frustration with the gesture he made when MPs spoke.

McBride’s outdated CV and his refusal to say his current employment was an issue with MPs saying it could not be a secret as it was announced that he was appointed as the director of the foreign branch of the State Security Agency.

However, McBride indicated that he could not help smiling when speaking with people.

He also said he had indicated to the evidence leaders his dilemma regarding mentioning where he worked.

During his testimony, McBride was grilled on his concerns that Mkhwanazi, a close friend of the late IPID investigator Mandla Mahlangu, was the first to arrive at the scene where he was murdered and did not attend his funeral.

He alleged that Mkhwanazi played an “undue and prosecutorial role” in attempts to disrupt investigations into former acting national police commissioner Khomotso Phahlane.

McBride told the Ad Hoc Committee that O’Sullivan, whom he first met in 2014, never undertook work for IPID other than being one of the sources of information.

“The fact that he provided information does not translate into controlling IPID.

“That is a fiction created by Phahlane,” he said.

However, ActionSA MP Dereleen James presented communication between McBride and attorney Sarah-Jane Trent, which included a message stating, “Give this to Paul”.

“Earlier, you testified that you did not give information to these individuals. You said you only speak to them once a month, yet the records reflect you spoke to them every day, all day long. You have lied twice to this committee.”

This was denied by McBride, including the accusation that he and Trent had a romantic relationship.

Testifying before the Ad Hoc Committee, Mkwanazi told MPs how he came to know attempted murderer accused tenderpreneur Vusi “Cat” Matlala.

“While Matlala is a director at Medicare24, he also owns Cat VIP Security. Our communication initially focused on collaboration to safeguard communities and provincial personnel. Subsequently, we grew closer, and he became like a brother to me,” he said.

Mkhwanazi, who agreed to receiving money from Matlala, denied involvement in the murder or the alleged cover-up as claimed by whistleblower Marius van der Merwe, also known as “Witness D” at Madlanga Commission.

Amid the testimonies, the Ad Hoc Committee has come under scrutiny with some questioning if it served the purpose it was meant for.

One commentator Henriette Abrahams, a Cape Town activist, said instead of a disciplined, collective inquiry focused on institutional accountability, the proceedings often drifted into performance, partisanship, and superficial engagement.

“Yet throughout these hearings, committee members appeared to operate as fragmented party blocs, ANC, ActionSA, MK Party, DA, EFF and others, rather than as a unified investigative unit.

“There was little evidence of a shared strategy for interrogating the witness, no sense of coordinated lines of inquiry, and no visible collective engagement with the full body of documentation placed before the committee,” Abrahams said.

Political analyst Professor Dirk Kotze noted that there was difference between a commission of inquiry and the Ad Hoc Committee.

Kotze said evidence leaders in the commissions were doing all the questioning and there were no others except the commissioners while in Parliament most of the questions are done by politicians. 

“The members of Parliament are, in the first instance, members of their political parties.  They tend, quite often, to do some posturing,” he said.

“Although they don’t say it explicitly, it is very often about coming from a particular political position as a party and that determines how they are questioning the witnesses, whether they are more sympathetic towards them or whether they are more aggressive,” Kotze said.

He also said MPs were not necessarily asking questions from an investigative point of view.

“Sometimes they do it more in order to embarrass the persons or go into directions that I personally think are not very relevant, but for them, they might have a personal interest in that.

“I think in the process, the Ad Hoc Committee is wasting a lot of time and because of that, I’m not sure that they will be able to cover all the points in their terms of reference, because they have limited time left in order to conclude this,” Kotze added.

mayibongwe.maqhina@inl.co.za

Source link