The National Assembly’s ad hoc committee tasked with investigating allegations of systemic capture within the criminal justice system adjourned its first sitting on Tuesday morning, following a procedural dispute over the admissibility of Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s written submission.
The committee, chaired by ANC MP Soviet Lekganyane, had convened to hear Mkhwanazi’s testimony arising from his public allegations.
Before Mkhwanazi could be sworn in, EFF leader Julius Malema raised a point of order objecting to the classification of the statement before the committee as a “supplementary affidavit”. Malema argued that the document, having been deposed to the Madlanga commission, was not procedurally appropriate for use in parliamentary proceedings.
Malema stated, “Gen Mkhwanazi is not proper before us. We are not a junior of the commission.” He insisted that an original statement be submitted directly to the committee in accordance with parliamentary rules.
The objection was grounded in National Assembly rules 167 and 189, which govern the summoning of witnesses and the administration of oaths. These rules require that witnesses submit original written statements before being sworn in, to ensure procedural integrity, enable members to prepare questions and support parliament’s record-keeping and accountability functions.
Committees retain the discretion to admit supplementary documents but may insist on originals or verified copies where documents are to be used as evidence or to support testimony.
Evidence leader Norman Arendse responded that the affidavit was original in substance, though labelled “supplementary” to avoid duplication of material already presented before the Madlanga commission.
He maintained the committee and the commission had agreed to exchange documents without being bound by each other’s processes.
Arendse added it would be “quite surprising” if Mkhwanazi’s testimony differed materially from his prior statements and that the legal team had sought to avoid repetition.
Malema rejected this explanation, asserting that legal representatives could not make procedural determinations on behalf of the committee. He accused the legal team of undermining the chair and demanded Arendse’s removal.
Support and calls for adjournment
MK party MPs David Skosana and Sibonelo Nomvalo supported the objection, with Nomvalo stating, “Let’s avoid this thing of mentioning Madlanga, Madlanga, Madlanga,” and expressing distrust in the executive-led commission.
ANC MP Xola Nqola and IFP MP Albert Mncwango called for an adjournment to correct the affidavit’s classification and avoid reputational harm.
Lekganyane acknowledged that the document was problematic and confirmed that Mkhwanazi was not yet properly before the committee.
He stated that when a document appeared before parliament, it must be an original statement to the committee. Arendse attempted to clarify further but was interrupted as Lekganyane adjourned the meeting.
Malema raised an additional point of order, reiterating his lack of confidence in the legal team.
Chamber cleared
Following the adjournment, Lekganyane instructed MPs to retake their seats, and all non-members, including media and officials, were asked to leave the chamber while the committee deliberated on a procedural way forward.
The legal teams are consulting with the chair to determine whether a revised document can be accepted and whether Mkhwanazi may be sworn in under corrected procedural terms.
The committee has not yet commenced its substantive work. The decision to halt the live stream and clear the chamber of all non-members, including media and officials, was procedurally irregular.
Its terms of reference, as publicly tabled, do not include any clause granting it discretionary authority to exclude observers or suspend public access without speaker consent.
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.