Malema: Mkhwanazi’s Testimony Lacks Validity
EFF leader Julius Malema has confronted KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi regarding his appearance before Parliament’s ad hoc committee, asserting that his submission was improperly made and thus his testimony lacks validity.
Malema raised a significant procedural objection as Advocate Norman Arendse SC, representing the legal team assisting the inquiry, called Mkhwanazi as the inaugural witness to be sworn in.
Malema questioned the legal foundation for administering the oath to the General, emphasizing that the only document available to the committee was a “supplementary statement” previously submitted to the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.
“We do not have General Mkhwanazi’s statement in front of us. We have a supplementary statement. Supplementing what? He first needs to submit an original statement to us,” Malema asserted. “No original statement exists. Therefore, General Mkhwanazi is not properly before us.”
Malema insisted that Parliament could not base its proceedings on a statement made to a commission created by the Executive, reaffirming that Parliament is an independent arm of the state.
“We are not a subordinate committee of the Commission,” he declared, demanding that the statement provided must address Parliament directly and be included in its official records.
“In the future, when our descendants search for General Mkhwanazi’s statement to Parliament, they won’t find it in the archives,” he stated.
Chairperson of the ad hoc committee, Molapi Lekganyane, turned to Arendse for clarification. Arendse defended the submission, asserting it had been presented to the committee and was subject to oath. He explained that it was termed a “supplementary statement” as much of Mkhwanazi’s evidence had already been addressed in his testimony before the Madlanga Commission.
“The statement has now been sworn by General Mkhwanazi,” Arendse clarified. “We refer to it as a supplementary statement because much of the factual context was elaborated by the evidence leaders in the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.”
He confirmed that Mkhwanazi’s testimony before the Commission was not given under oath, although he did provide oral evidence there under the 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 earlier work.
However, Lekganyane interjected, emphasizing that Parliament required an original statement to be presented, not a document from a different state branch.
“What the Honourable Member seeks to ascertain is whether the sworn statement made by General Mkhwanazi at the Madlanga Commission takes precedence over this. Their comprehension is that it is to be an annex to this statement,” Lekganyane noted.
Arendse responded that the current statement addressed to Parliament takes precedence, although he acknowledged it “incorporates, by reference, the Madlanga Commission.”
Malema remained unconvinced. “You intend to summon General Mkhwanazi before this committee without an original statement? When has it ever occurred that the first statement presented is labeled a supplementary statement?” he queried.
He accused the legal team of undermining the committee and bringing disrepute to Parliament. “They decide that a supplementary statement will serve as the original and present it here, embarrassing us before the cameras as if we are uninformed,” Malema charged.
He insisted that Mkhwanazi should be excused and that the legal team must return with a correctly drafted and titled original statement.
Other MPs voiced support for Malema’s concerns. MK Party MP David Sikhosana labeled it “embarrassing” that the committee was leaning on documentation from the Madlanga Commission, despite prior agreements for Parliament to pursue its own independent process. “We are failing the country. It feels as though we are unsure of our path,” he remarked.
MK Party colleague Sibonelo Nomvalo accused the legal team of “misleading” the committee. “If you assert we must depend on the statement from the Madlanga Commission, you are essentially undercutting Parliament’s constitutional duties,” he argued.
ANC MP Xola Nqola tried to ease the tension, saying he had assumed the submitted statement was aligned with the committee’s expectations.
“Upon noticing that the statement was addressed to the Chair of the ad hoc committee, I believed that’s what we had agreed upon,” Nqola stated. He proposed a 15-minute adjournment to rectify what he deemed a technical oversight.
IFP MP Mangaqa Mncwango also supported the adjournment, highlighting that the cover letter referred to “the witness statement of Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi,” while the actual document used “Supplementary Witness Statement” as its heading, which he described as a “clear distortion.”
When Lekganyane suggested directly asking Mkhwanazi whether the statement was made to Parliament, Malema raised a point of order, cautioning that Mkhwanazi could not be addressed until he had taken the oath before the committee.
“There is no General Mkhwanazi present before this committee. He is not here. Until we have assured his proper appearance, it is procedurally incorrect,” Malema stated. “Before you engage with him, he must first take an oath. Only then is he before us.”
Lekganyane conceded this point, agreeing that Mkhwanazi could not be engaged until sworn in properly and until a correctly titled statement was submitted. “That is a valid point. I completely agree with you,” said Lekganyane.
The committee adjourned the meeting to allow the legal team to revise the document and ensure Mkhwanazi’s appearance complied with proper parliamentary protocol.
[email protected]
IOL Politics