MPs on Tuesday raised their concerns when a parliamentary legal advisor suggested that KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s allegations were technically not evidence.

This happened when the Ad Hoc Committee, which is mandated to investigate Mkhwanazi’s allegations, met for the first time to discuss some of its preparations, such as the terms of reference and getting prisoners testify as witnesses.

Responding to the questions, parliamentary legal advisor Andile Tetyana said there was a draft terms of reference that could be released in two or three days to MPs for comments.

Tetyana also said there was a lot of backroom legal technical support that should take place, and that witnesses would need to be identified.

“I am saying this with the greatest of respect. What General Mkhwanazi said on 6 July 2025 was not evidence in a technical sense. Of course, one would need a legal person to go around speaking to people, who will be able to corroborate what Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi said. The committee can’t do that, and, of course, you need sworn statements from witnesses drafted and so on. That is the kind of work that will take place in the next two to three weeks,” he said.

EFF leader Julius Malema questioned where the remark about Mkhwanazi said was not evidence came from.

“You can’t start by saying what General Mkhwanazi said is not evidence. That is very dismissive. Right at the beginning, we are starting on the wrong footing.

“Please, when people are asked, especially support staff, they must not enter the terrain. They must give us technical advice and leave the rest to us because we are not to leave here being part of a remark that says what Mkhwanazi said, not evidence,” Malema said.

MK Party’s MP David Skosana said he was a bit disturbed by the legal team’s remarks about Mkhwanazi’s allegations.

“If they want to work with us, they should not tell us that what Mkhwanazi said is not evidence. This is disturbing. Why are we here? Are we here for gossiping? We are not here for that,” Skosana said.

“Mkhwanazi presented, and he attached evidence in that press statement,” he said before asking that the chief parliamentary legal advisor should attend their future meetings.

IFP MP Albert Mncwango said he was equally disturbed to hear that Mkhwanazi’s revelations were actually not evidence.

“I think that was actually defeating the purpose of this session,” Mncwango said.

He also raised his concerns about the absence of the chief parliamentary advisor at the meeting.

“This is a critical start to this process of investigation. It is very crucial that we start from a solid foundation and a solid legal foundation as well.”

ANC MP Xola Nqola said they preferred the chief parliamentary legal advisor deployed to the committee to assist it, given the nature of the issues they would be handling.

“Without sounding, we don’t take seriously the legal advisors that are here; they can work as a team led by the chief legal advisor,” Nqola said.

Committee chairperson Soviet Lekganyane described Tetyana’s remarks as being subjective and pleaded with MPs not to dwell on them.

“He can’t decide for us what is evidence and what is not evidence. It is unfortunate that it has been said here. He can’t say that before we agree on the terms of reference. The terms of reference will tell us this is evidence or it is not evidence,” Lekganyane said.

ActionSA MP Dereleen James said the statement by Tetyana was out of line based on allegations made by Mkhwanazi and the office he held.

James took issue that an ANC MP was elected as the committee chairperson.

“How do we garner public trust here this morning when we have a chairperson who has been elected from the very party where most of these people are embroiled?

“How does that make the public feel to know that today we have a member from the same family, where all these people come from?” she asked.

This prompted the ANC and Patriotic Alliance to raise concerns that James did not use the opportunity to raise her concern when Lekganyane was elected, but the MK Party and EFF came to James’ defence.

ANC chief Mdumiseni Ntuli stated that the committee would discharge its responsibility consistently within the Constitution and the laws of the country.

“There should not be fear that because there are others who have come from this and other party, this might in any way negatively contaminate the process we are engaged in.

“We should get our work tested in action as opposed to what maybe our own preconceived ideas with one another as we start our work,” Ntuli said.

Lekganyane said they were sworn as MPs and should act within the law in executing their responsibility.

“I was not sworn through the law of the ANC. There is only one law to swear in MPs,” he said.

“It will be sheer hypocrisy on our part if there is anything we are going to do is meant to shoot down the noble intention of Parliament when it appointed this Ad Hoc Committee,” he said.

mayibongwe.maqhina@inl.co.za

Source link