By Johnathan Paoli
Parliament’s ad hoc committee probing allegations raised by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi spent much of its latest sitting locked in a tense procedural debate over its programme for the week and whether senior political figures and top security officials should be called to testify.
The meeting’s agenda included finalising the committee programme, correspondence from the Speaker, regarding controversial businessman Brown Mogotsi and forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan; as well as future witnesses intended to testify before the committee.
However, discussions were dominated by disagreements over witness callings and whether previous decisions should be revisited.
Committee chairperson Soviet Lekganyane acknowledged that members were sharply divided, particularly on whether President Cyril Ramaphosa, ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula, General Feroz Khan and other senior figures should appear before the committee.
“There is no agreement amongst the members,” Lekganyane said, adding that he was persuaded to refer the contested names to the committee’s legal team for assessment.
He said the legal team would evaluate the “materiality of facts” presented to the committee, identify potential weaknesses, and advise whether the individuals should be asked to make oral appearances or submit written responses.
According to Lekganyane, the names of Khan and Ramaphosa would be forwarded to the legal team, which would also initiate contact for consultations.
However, he noted that there was similarly no consensus that Mbalula, Khan or Ramaphosa should appear in person.
“There is no agreement that Mr Fikile Mbalula must appear before the committee. The feeling of the committee is that those names can be sent back to the legal team for assessment,” Lekganyane said.
Members were reminded that the committee had previously rejected calls for Khan and Mbalula to testify and had agreed that, if necessary, President Ramaphosa would be approached for a written submission rather than an appearance.
This prompted objections from several members, who argued that new testimony warranted a review of those decisions.
They insisted the witness list had never been formally closed and that emerging evidence required reconsideration.
Members argued that numerous witnesses had mentioned the same senior figures and that ignoring those references would undermine the committee’s credibility.
Others questioned the rationale for limiting President Ramaphosa to a written submission, noting that the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on policing reported directly to him.
They argued the committee had no clarity on whether the President supported or opposed the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT), an issue central to its mandate.
Concerns were also raised about General Khan, with members saying his name had surfaced repeatedly during testimony and could not simply be dismissed without proper scrutiny.
ANC members pushed back strongly, warning against what they described as political grandstanding.
ANC MP Khusela Diko demanded the withdrawal of statements alleging financial wrongdoing by Mbalula, calling them defamatory and procedurally improper.
She maintained that the committee had taken valid decisions on Ramaphosa and Mbalula and that reopening them without clear motivation would derail its work.
However, she cautioned that if the process became a “free-for-all”, additional names, including senior legal and security figures, would also be proposed.
Despite the disagreements, the committee agreed to proceed with hearings scheduled for Tuesday, when four witnesses, including Former State Security Agency (SSA) chairperson Xolile Mashukuca, Pilasande Dotyeni, and two anonymous witnesses, are set to testify.
Lekganyane concluded by confirming that the legal team would assess the disputed names and report back with recommendations, as the committee attempts to balance competing demands for accountability, fairness and procedural integrity.
INSIDE POLITICS