Parliament’s ad hoc committee into allegations of corruption and political interference in the criminal justice system has concluded its public hearings.
The closure marks a shift from testimony to political decision-making, with attention now turning to the committee’s report.
But the central political question remains unresolved: whether suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu stays in office.
The hearings concluded with KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi appearing before the committee for the second time as the final witness.
He reiterated his allegation that Mchunu’s decision to disband the political killings task team enabled criminal networks to operate within policing structures and reflected political interference in law enforcement.
His evidence again framed Mchunu as an enabler of criminality rather than directly accusing him of corruption, leaving the claims politically significant but not conclusively tested within the parliamentary process.
Mchunu responded in a written statement after the hearings. He rejected the allegations as “untrue” and “unfounded” and said no evidence had been formally produced to support them. Mkhwanazi had changed his version over time and failed to substantiate his claims despite repeated undertakings, he said.
The dispute between the two remains unresolved and now sits at the centre of both parliamentary and judicial processes.
At the same time, Mchunu has moved to reassert his political position. He voluntarily stepped aside from his role in the ANC national executive committee after the allegations emerged in 2025, when President Cyril Ramaphosa placed him on special leave and announced a judicial commission of inquiry into the claims.
He has resumed his duties as an ANC NEC member after several months away, despite the ongoing investigations, he confirmed.
Mchunu’s return puts him back inside the party’s highest decision-making structure between conferences, even as questions about his conduct remain unresolved.
The ad hoc committee now moves into its final phase. It will compile a report based on testimony and submissions and table it before the National Assembly for adoption.
Mchunu’s return puts him back inside the party’s highest decision-making structure between conferences, even as questions about his conduct remain unresolved.
The committee can make findings and recommendations, including referrals to investigative authorities, but it cannot remove a minister or impose sanctions. Its role remains one of oversight rather than adjudication.
The outcome therefore shifts beyond parliament.
The president retains sole authority to appoint or dismiss ministers, and any decision on Mchunu’s future will depend on political judgment rather than the committee’s findings alone.
Ramaphosa has already indicated the seriousness of the allegations and opted to allow further investigation rather than immediate dismissal when placing Mchunu on leave.
A parallel process continues through the Madlanga commission, which operates under a different framework.
Unlike the ad hoc committee, the commission functions as a judicial inquiry with evidence leaders and a structured approach to testing evidence.
It has the capacity to examine documentation, hear testimony in a controlled format and build a record that may support legal or prosecutorial action.
This creates a more substantive evidentiary process than the parliamentary inquiry, which relied on MPs to interrogate witnesses without investigative support.
The end of the ad hoc committee therefore does not conclude the matter. It formalises the allegations within Parliament and shifts the focus to two decisive arenas.
The Madlanga commission will test the evidence in detail, while the presidency will determine the political consequences.
Whether Senzo Mchunu remains in office will depend on how those processes develop and not only on the committee’s findings.
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.