 (1).png){kind=spacer}
1 week ago
4
Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
- Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's appearance before the ad hoc committee investigating allegations of a captured justice system was disrupted over his "supplementary affidavit."
- EFF leader Julius Malema argued the affidavit, tied to the Madlanga Commission, was improper for the committee, and called for clarity and original submissions.
- The hearing was adjourned due to disagreements over procedural issues, with tensions flaring between Malema, other MPs, and legal representatives.
Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s evidence before the National Assembly’s ad hoc committee to investigate his allegations that the criminal justice system has been captured got off to a false start.
On 6 July, Mkhwanazi held a dramatic press conference, which triggered President Cyril Ramaphosa placing then-police minister Senzo Mchunu on gardening leave, and establishing the commission of inquiry to investigate the capture of the police, chaired by former Constitutional Court Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga.
Parliament, meanwhile, established an ad hoc committee to investigate Mkhwanazi’s allegations.
On Tuesday, at the first day of the committee’s hearings, EFF leader Julius Malema intervened before committee chairperson, ANC MP Soviet Lekganyane, could swear Mkhwanazi in.
Malema complained that Mkhwanazi’s statement to the committee was titled as a “supplementary affidavit”.
He asked on what basis Mkhwanazi could take an oath, because they didn’t have a statement from him before the committee. He complained that the statement was deposed to the Madlanga Commission.
Malema said:
And therefore, General Mkhwanazi is not proper before us. We are not a junior of the commission.
Malema pointed out that the commission was established by the executive, a separate arm of state. He said there must be a separate statement to the committee, not just a “supplementary” statement.
“He is not proper before us. And the legal team is to blame, not himself,” he said of Mkhwanazi.
READ | Mkhwanazi to appear before Parliament as ANC seeks to distance itself from Mogotsi
Evidence leader advocate Norman Arendse explained that there was a statement before the committee. He said it was called a supplementary affidavit because much of it was heard before the Madlanga Commission, but that it was an affidavit in its own right.
Arendse said it would be “quite surprising” if Mkhwanazi’s testimony on Tuesday differed from his testimony before the Madlanga Commission.
He added that they had tried to avoid repetition in his statement to the committee and that it was appropriate to incorporate Mkhwanazi’s statement to the Madlanga Commission into his statement to the committee.
This did not appease Malema.
He responded:
There are no legal teams that are going to take decisions on behalf of this committee.
Malema said the legal team was embarrassing the committee on camera.
“I might not be a lawyer, but I am a lawmaker,” said Malema, who also became a convicted criminal last week.
Malema was backed up by MKP MPs David Skosana and Sibonelo Nomvalo, while ANC MP Xola Nqola and IFP MP Albert Mncwango supported an adjournment to change the name of the affidavit.
“Let’s avoid this thing of mentioning Madlanga, Madlanga, Madlanga,” said Nomvalo, who added that he didn’t have any confidence in the commission, which has been set up by Ramaphosa, and is chaired by a former Constitutional Court judge.
Arendse said the committee and commission had agreed to exchange documents, without each other being bound by the other’s documents.
ROLLING COVERAGE | Ad hoc committee adjourned ahead Mkhwanazi’s testimony over ‘supplementary affidavit’ concerns
Lekganyane said that when the document appeared before the committee, it had to be an original statement to the committee. That is why “supplementary statement” was problematic to the committee.
Arendse said it was an original statement.
He wanted to say something else, but Lekganyane adjourned the committee and didn’t allow him to speak.
Meanwhile, Malema raised his hand for another point of order.
“I really have no confidence in him!” said Malema of Arendse, whom he accused of undermining the chair.
He demanded that Arendse be removed. When serving on the Section 194 Committee that impeached since-removed Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, Malema also habitually had a go at the evidence leaders and the committee’s legal team.
It was unclear for how long the adjournment would last, but it was expected that the committee would resume sometime during Tuesday morning.
