Story audio is generated using AI
As the ad hoc committee investigating allegations of corruption in the criminal justice system nears the deadline to submit its final report, members are struggling to reach a middle ground on key findings.
The committee is deliberating paragraph-by-paragraph on its extensive draft report before its September 11 deadline to report to the National Assembly, a date set after multiple extensions of its original 2025 timeline.
On Tuesday, the MK Party clashed with other members over several core sections of the draft.
Key points of friction included the committee’s alleged failure to subpoena suspended deputy head of crime intelligence Maj-Gen Feroz Khan, the nature of suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu’s relationship with Brown Mogotsi and attempted murder accused Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala, and whether the committee adequately covered its full terms of reference.
The debate over Maj-Gen Feroz Khan
The MK Party submitted that “Khan was repeatedly mentioned in evidence but was not called to testify”. Khan has been heavily implicated in the Madlanga commission for allegedly having ties with criminal syndicates.
Several members, including from the ANC and DA, strongly disputed the MK Party’s wording.
ANC MP Khusela Diko raised concerns about using the word “repeatedly”, arguing it falsely implied the committee deliberately ignored substantive allegations.
“There were no allegations put to us about Khan which we chose not to investigate or where we chose not to call him,” Diko said.
DA MP Ian Cameron agreed, noting that the phrasing unfairly suggested MPs were shielding Khan. “That was not the case,” Cameron said, urging the committee to rephrase the sentence to avoid creating the wrong impression.
EFF MP Mathys suggested adjusting the text to clarify that omitting Khan was not part of a deliberate cover-up. Diko later reiterated that the draft should not give the impression that the committee actively protected anyone from wrongdoing.
However, MK Party MP David Skosana insisted that Khan’s name had surfaced multiple times and accused certain members of blocking efforts to summon him.
“I have clips, proof, and I am not thumbsucking,” Skosana said. “I’ve been raising these issues along with my colleagues. It cannot be erased, and it cannot be denied that Khan’s name was mentioned repeatedly — and not just by one witness.”
Skosana added that he had consistently urged the committee to call Khan, claiming he was even called “foolish” for pushing the matter. “The committee can take whatever decision it wants, but Khan’s name was mentioned by several witnesses. He was supposed to be called, but unfortunately, some members refused. The statement is correct and clear,” he said.
Patriotic Alliance MP Ashley Sauls sided with the MK Party that Khan should have been called, but clarified that other members resisted simply because there was insufficient evidence presented directly to the committee.
Skosana pushed back against editing the draft, saying: “We failed to call Khan. We cannot lie. What is the issue with the sentence if it is true?”
Committee chairperson Soviet Lekganyane ultimately ruled that the word “repeatedly” would be removed and the paragraph reformulated before moving on to the next item.
Mchunu’s alleged ties to Mogotsi
The committee next debated the MK Party’s assertion regarding suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu.
The party submitted that “Mchunu’s initial denial or downplaying of his association with Mr Mogotsi was difficult to reconcile with the relationship subsequently acknowledged, and that parliament had not been provided with a complete or accurate account when the matter was first raised”.
ANC MP Mdumiseni Ntuli rejected the submission, warning that the MK Party was relying on external testimony from the Madlanga commission rather than evidence directly presented to the parliamentary committee.
“I don’t think an observation with which we have not interacted directly can constitute the basis on which we make conclusions in our report,” Ntuli argued.
Skosana countered, insisting that Mchunu had misled the committee.
“We know it for a fact now. Mogotsi and the minister know each other, but if you want to colour-code it and remove it, that’s fine,” Skosana said. “We can’t deny that Mchunu knows Mogotsi and Matlala.”
Scope of the inquiry
The MK Party then argued that the inquiry and draft report focused too heavily on the South African Police Service (SAPS) while neglecting serious allegations involving the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, the National Prosecuting Authority, Correctional Services, the magistracy and the judiciary.
While other members pushed back against expanding the critical findings, Skosana maintained that the committee fell short of its mandate.
“We failed the people of the republic,” Skosana said. “Let’s not colour-code this. We know we want to look clean, but no. I know it’s not easy to accept, but we dropped the ball.”
TimesLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.