Malema rejects KZN Police Commissioner Mkhwanazi's testimony as invalid, which causes the committee to adjourn

Leader of the EFF, Julius Malema, has contested the validity of KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's testimony before Parliament's ad hoc committee.  Malema asserts that the statement provided by Lt-Gen Mkhwanazi was not submitted properly, consequently invalidating his testimony.

Malema raised a significant procedural objection precisely as Advocate Norman Arendse SC, representing the legal team supporting the inquiry, requested Mkhwanazi to be sworn in as the initial witness.

Malema questioned the legal basis for swearing in the General, stating that the only statement available to the committee was a “supplementary statement” previously submitted to the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.

“We have no statement of General Mkhwanazi before us. We have a supplementary statement. Supplementing what? Because he must first submit to us a statement,” Malema told the committee. “There is no such original statement. And therefore General Mkhwanazi is not properly before us.”

Malema was adamant that Parliament could not rely on a statement made to a commission established by the Executive, asserting that Parliament is a separate arm of the state.

“We are not a junior committee of the Commission,” he said, insisting that the statement submitted must be directed to Parliament itself and become part of its record.

“In the history of this Parliament, when our children and grandchildren are going to be looking for General Mkhwanazi's statement to Parliament, they won't find it in the archives,” he said.

Chairperson of the ad hoc committee, Molapi Lekganyane, turned to  Arendse to clarify. Arendse defended the document, stating it had been submitted to the committee and was now under oath. He explained that it was called a “supplementary statement” because much of Mkhwanazi’s evidence had already been covered in his testimony before the Madlanga Commission.

“The statement has now been sworn by General Mkhwanazi,” Arendse said. “We call it a supplementary statement because much of the factual background was covered extensively by the evidence leaders in the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.”

He confirmed that Mkhwanazi’s statement before the Commission had not been made under oath, but that he had given oral evidence there under oath administered by Justice Madlanga. He added that the legal team had since consulted Mkhwanazi and the current statement before Parliament referenced and incorporated that previous work.

However, Lekganyane interjected to stress that Parliament needed an original statement deposited before it, not a document owned by another branch of the state.

“What the Honourable Member wants to know is whether the sworn statement that General Mkhwanazi made at the Madlanga Commission enjoys precedence over this. Because their understanding is that it is supposed to be an annex to the statement,” Lekganyane said.

Arendse replied that the current statement, addressed to Parliament, takes precedence, but admitted it “incorporates, by reference, the Madlanga Commission.”

Malema was not satisfied. “You are going to call General Mkhwanazi before this committee without an original statement? Where have you ever had a situation where the first statement you make is called a supplementary statement?” he asked.

He accused the legal team of undermining the committee and embarrassing Parliament. “They go and take a decision that a supplementary statement will be an original statement and bring it here and embarrass us in front of cameras like we are a group of people who don’t know anything,” said Malema.

He said Mkhwanzi should be excused and the legal team should return with a properly drafted and titled original statement.

Other MPs echoed Malema’s concerns. MK Party MP David Sikhosana said it was “embarrassing” that the committee was now appearing to rely on documentation from the Madlanga Commission, despite earlier agreements that Parliament would run its own independent process. “We are letting the country down. It’s like we don’t know what we are doing,” he said.

MK Party colleague Sibonelo Nomvalo accused the legal team of “misleading” the committee. “If you say we must rely on the statement of the Madlanga Commission, you are simply subverting the constitutional responsibility of Parliament,” he said.

ANC MP Xola Nqola attempted to mediate the tension, saying he had assumed the statement submitted was in line with committee expectations.

“When I saw that the statement itself is addressed to the Chair of the ad hoc committee, I thought that’s what we agreed about,” Nqola said. He suggested a 15-minute adjournment to correct what he described as a technical error.

IFP MP Mangaqa Mncwango also supported the adjournment, pointing out that the cover letter referred to “the witness statement of Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi,” yet the actual document used the heading “Supplementary Witness Statement,” which he called a “clear distortion.”

When Lekganyane suggested asking Mkhwanazi directly to confirm whether the statement was made to Parliament, Malema raised a point of order, warning that Mkhwanzi could not be addressed until he had taken the oath before the committee.

“There is no General Mkhwanazi before this committee. He is not here. Until we have satisfied his appearance before us, it is procedurally wrong,” Malema said. “Once you talk to him, the first thing he must do is to take an oath. Then only is he before us.”

Lekganyane conceded the point, agreeing that Mkhwanazi could not be engaged in any way until he had been sworn in before the committee and a properly titled statement had been submitted. “That is a valid point. I 100% agree with you,” said Lekganyane.

The committee adjourned the meeting to allow the legal team to revise the document and ensure Mkhwanazi's appearance adhered to proper parliamentary procedure.

hope.ntanzi@iol.co.za

IOL Politics

Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.