MALAIKA MAHLATSI | Ramaphosa should have fired Mchunu for lying to parliament on his relationship with Mogotsi

Last Sunday, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry to be chaired by acting deputy chief justice, Mbuyiseli Madlanga. The commission will investigate allegations relating to the infiltration of law enforcement, intelligence and associated institutions within the criminal justice system by criminal syndicates.

The announcement followed explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner, Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, who held a press conference days before to inform the country of alleged political interference in the work of the SAPS, at the centre of which is current police minister, Senzo Mchunu, who is alleged to be working with criminal syndicates.

Ramaphosa announced that he had placed Mchunu on leave – a decision that many have welcomed, arguing that it is the correct thing for a president to do given that he cannot act on allegations but should make decisions based on facts. This argument would hold water if Mchunu’s only transgressions were those alleged by Mkhwanazi.

There are factual grounds on which Ramaphosa could and should have fired Mchunu – lying to parliament. This is because on March 5, Mchunu stood before parliament’s portfolio committee on police and stated that he did not know Oupa “Brown” Mogotsi, the man said to be at the centre of the minister’s alleged relationship with shadowy figures. At the said hearing, Mchunu said he did not know and had never met Mogotsi.

But just a few days ago, on July 9, after Mkhwanazi’s press conference, Mchunu’s office released an official statement in which the minister stated that he did, in fact, know Mogotsi. The statement reads, in part: “Furthermore, whilst the minister knows and has met Mr Brown Mogotsi, he is just a comrade and not an associate of the minister”.

This glaring contradiction is not an allegation, but a fact. It is irrefutable evidence that Mchunu lied to parliament. Knowingly providing false or misleading information to parliament is a criminal offence under the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, 2004. This act aims to protect parliament's ability to function and hold individuals accountable for obstructing its work. Violations can result in imprisonment for up to three years. 

Beyond the act, lying has serious consequences under several broader legal and constitutional frameworks. If a person gives evidence to parliament under oath or affirmation (for example, during a sworn testimony before a parliamentary committee), knowingly making a false statement may constitute perjury, which is a criminal offence under SA law. If the act of lying involves corruption, fraud, or the intention to mislead for personal or political gain, the conduct may fall under anti-corruption statutes and be prosecuted accordingly.

Furthermore, parliament has its own codes of conduct and disciplinary processes. Members found to have deliberately misled parliament can and should face expulsion and other parliamentary sanctions.

The point is that Ramaphosa waiting on the commission’s report, a draft of which is due in three months, to take actions against Mchunu, is manipulative. The president doesn’t need findings on the allegations of Mchunu’s alleged role in the infiltration of SAPS. The commission is a separate process which must necessarily take place to safeguard the integrity of the investigation.

But there is already existing factual evidence that Mchunu did commit a crime by lying to parliament. The fact that Ramaphosa did not act on this matter, just as he did not act on higher education minister, Nobuhle Nkabane, who is guilty of exactly the same crime, communicates that he does not see anything wrong with leading a cabinet of unethical and dishonest people who have no regard for the very constitution they swore to uphold.

This lawlessness that the president is permitting and presiding over must concern all of us because it sets parameters for the further erosion of trust in the executive and entirety of the state.