By Johnathan Paoli
Parliament’s ad hoc committee probing allegations of criminal infiltration and political interference in the justice system adjourned early on Wednesday night after MPs clashed over whether evidence showed that Brown Mogotsi had influenced then Police Minister Senzo Mchunu.
An argument erupted between ANC MP Khusela Sangoni-Diko and EFF MP Leigh-Anne Mathys over whether the committee’s draft report – due by Friday – should find that Mogotsi exercised influence over Mchunu, and whether Mogotsi’s relationship with attempted murder and corruption-accused businessman Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala could be treated as part of a broader relationship involving the minister.
ALSO READ: Mapisa-Nqakula under fire over travel allowances and renovation projects
The EFF’s submission to the draft argued that the interactions between Mchunu, Mogotsi and Matlala raised serious ethical and institutional-integrity concerns, alleging that Mogotsi’s access to the minister, communications with Matlala, access to sensitive SAPS information and provision of financial or practical assistance pointed to improper influence outside normal institutional channels.
But the ANC rejected the wording, saying that the evidence showed access to the minister but did not establish that Mogotsi had persuaded him to take particular decisions.
ALSO READ: Cellphone found in prison may hold clues to Van der Merwe murder
Sangoni-Diko said the evidence showed Mogotsi had been asked by Mchunu to arrange meetings, but did not demonstrate that he had directed the minister’s actions.
“We’ve already agreed in the preceding paragraph that there could be a need for a deeper enquiry into this relationship between Minister Mchunu and Mr Mogotsi, but to say that Mr Mogotsi was influencing the minister is to take it a step too far,” she said.
“When somebody influences somebody, they have a particular view on a matter, they influence you, they lobby you, they advocate for that position, you act in accordance to that, and there was no evidence presented to us that Minister Mchunu was acting in accordance with Mr Mogotsi’s wishes,” she added.
When it came to Matlala, she objected to wording suggesting an established relationship between all three, saying there was no evidence that Mchunu and Matlala knew or communicated with one another.
She called such a finding a potential “grave miscarriage of justice” and said that the relationships should be separated.
The Patriotic Alliance’s Ashley Sauls agreed, pointing out that Mchunu had been the minister who initiated the process that ultimately resulted in the cancellation of Matlala’s Medicare24 SAPS medical contract.
Mathys, however, argued that Mogotsi had presented himself as a link between Mchunu and Matlala and that the report should not simply discard evidence raising questions about that alleged connection.
ALSO READ:Two foreign nationals arrested in multimillion-rand Erasmia drug bust
Mathys said the committee could acknowledge that the evidence did not establish a direct relationship while still recording the concerns arising from Mogotsi’s conduct and communications.
The committee ultimately agreed to separate the relationships and avoid making a finding based on an unsupported link between Mchunu and Matlala.
The dispute then spilled into a personal confrontation between Mathys and Sauls over his repeated description of her submissions as “creative”.
Sauls said that MPs could not construct possible scenarios from evidence that had not been placed before the committee.
“We can’t base a finding on what could have been, what might have been, and then create… like what [the] EFF is doing is creating a scenario. As a matter of fact, creating a possible scenario. I disagree that we should do that and then create a finding based on the creativity of the EFF. We should base a finding on what has been put before us. And if the EFF questions what was put before us, that’s a different story. But what was put before us was that formal process,” he said.
Mathys objected, saying the language was insulting and risked derailing the committee’s deliberations.
“I think when we are deliberating, we must not make unbecoming comments like saying EFF ‘creativity’. We are having a debate, we are having deliberations. So let’s just speak to the point because we’re going to start having the meeting degenerate. And then we’re going to start responding, say you don’t agree, but don’t use words like ‘creativity’,” she said.
Committee chair Soviet Lekganyane sustained Mathys’ point of order and instructed Sauls to withdraw the term, but Sauls refused, arguing that “creativity” accurately described what he believed were attempts to establish a relationship not supported by evidence.
Lekganyane eventually adjourned the meeting, warning MPs that their conduct was making an already difficult process harder.
He said the committee had to protect the integrity of its deliberations and avoid personal attacks while working through disagreements.
The committee is expected to resume on Thursday evening.
INSIDE POLITICS
