Members of the ad hoc committee into Lt Gen Mkhwanazi's corruption allegations spent hours arguing over the terms of reference.
The enquiry into KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s bombshell allegations against senior officials and his ministry has failed to take off.
Politicians comprising the ad hoc committee into Mkhwanazi’s allegations met virtually on Thursday morning, but spent much of the meeting disputing procedure.
Committee members argued with legal advisors over the format of the presentation of the draft terms of reference, forcing advisors to reconfigure the presentation twice in the space of three hours.
Committee members were given a copy of the draft regulations in advance in order to provide alternative suggestions, but parties were upset that their submissions were not displayed on the presentation.
The first break in the meeting allowed the legal team to add some submissions, but parties objected as only the ANC suggestions were visible on the presentation.
The draft terms of reference contained 11 clauses over 14 pages, outlining the purpose of the enquiry and how witnesses will provide evidence, among other points.
The committee were later referred to individual documents containing party submissions, frustrating the members.
Presentation bungle
The meeting stalled two and a half hours in as parties refused the way the debate over their submission was being handled.
EFF leader Julius Malema was upset that the ANC’s submission was typed out as part of the document, whereas the EFF’s appeared as a hyperlink, if at all.
“They’ve got our inputs, but didn’t put them here. And now they act confused, but when it comes to ANC, they are not confused,” said Malema, directing his frustration at the presenters.
“The ANC’s input is written, it’s here. We must all look disorganised because of the incompetence of parliament.”
ANC Chief Whip Mdumiseni Ntuli agreed with Malema, leading to the second lengthy adjournment.
“We are being exposed to the document of each party, as opposed to an integrated document where party inputs have been taken into consideration,” said Ntuli.
The DA’s Dianne Kohler Barnard noted that no progress had been made in hours, reiterating the call for an integrated document.
“Please, can we get the document put together with every input from every party very clearly marked — as you managed to do with the ANC’s input — so we can give it due consideration,” she said.
Chief legal council’s commitment
Questions over the commitment of the chief legal advisor Zuraya Adhikarie were also raised.
Adhikarie had excused herself from a previous meeting and, on Thursday, was participating in an online meeting regarding another matter simultaneously.
“Behind the scenes, we are working as a team. You have one of the most efficient legal advisors, that is highly skilled in this area of work, who has been permanently deployed to you,” said Adhikare, explaining the role of her subordinates.
“Unfortunately, as the chief legal advisor, with multiple priorities, it is not possible for me to be in every meeting, but I am on top of it and we do work together as a team. So, to the extent possible, I will avail myself.”
Some on the members accepted her explanation, but Umkhonto weSizwe Party’s Sibonelo Nomvalo stressed that “matters of such national importance” required all involved to be solely focused on the matter at hand.
“We don’t want to deal with legal advisors who need to be legally advised themselves here,” said Nomvalo.
The EFF’s Leigh-Ann Mathys agreed with Nomvalo, stating that the importance of dealing with Mkhwanazi’s claims was unprecedented.
“This is going to be a historical ad hoc committee, so we do need to have the highest level of staff here,” said Mathys.
“We don’t want to start off on a bad footing. [She] must just be cognisant that we are members of parliament — she is not doing us a favour by attending or not attending — the speaker must be responsible for her making sure she is available going forward.”
Draft terms of reference
The meeting resumed after an hour break and, among the confusion, members got a brief overview of the draft terms of reference.
The draft stated the purpose of the committee would be to “investigate the veracity” of Mkhwanazi’s allegations — although the ANC’s suggestion was to replace the term “investigate” with “enquire into”.
The ANC also suggested that “external legal council” assisting the committee should be substituted for National Assembly’s Constitutional Legal Service Office.
Clause 5 of the draft stated that witnesses were to appear under oath and that legal representation would not be allowed, but that witnesses can seek legal advice at their own cost.
Lawyers would not be allowed to speak on a witness’ behalf and all evidence must would be given by witnesses, not via lawyers, stated the draft.
“Should the committee make adverse finding against persons, in its report to the National Assembly, the committee will afford the affected persons an opportunity to address the evidence against them,” stated draft clause 5.7.1.
“The Committee will, once it has prepared a provisional report, ensure that all people about whom it proposes to make adverse findings have had an opportunity to address those accusations,” read draft clause 5.7.2.
The committee will be able to invite people accused of wrongdoing to return to address accusations, as well as compel them to do so whether they wished to or not.
On external experts, the draft allowed for assistance from forensic investigators, the Auditor General, Public Protector, the Hawks, the National Prosecuting Authority and the Special Investigating Unit.
In-camera sessions would only be permitted as an exception following an application by an interested party to the chairperson, and meetings would be conducted within the parliamentary precinct, or online, when necessary.
The draft set a deadline for the completion of the committee’s work at 31 October, but did leave the option for an extension.
NOW READ: Campaign raises R44k for Mkhwanazi … but it won’t go to the commissioner
