Ad Hoc Committee faces scrutiny over effectiveness in Mkhwanazi probe

AS THE Ad Hoc Committee investigating allegations against KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi prepares for its next round of proceedings with new witnesses, questions arise regarding its effectiveness in fulfilling its intended purpose.

Forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan, who is scheduled to testify on Tuesday and Wednesday, has expressed a preference to provide his evidence virtually from London, citing safety concerns. However, the Ad Hoc Committee insists on his physical appearance.

Amid indications that O’Sullivan may refuse to appear, Committee chairperson Soviet Lekganyane stated on Thursday that if they cannot secure his presence, alternative activities should be arranged for those days.

“If we don't have him, the public submissions and civil society organisations that are appearing should know and have that information by close of business tomorrow. We must not miss those two days. We no longer have time on our side,” he said

This follows three days of hearings during which former Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) head Robert McBride and Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department deputy chief Julius Mkhwanazi provided testimony, both of which were marked by drama and heated exchanges.

The atmosphere was charged from the outset, with a spat between EFF MP Leigh-Ann Mathys and DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach during the introduction of MPs. Lekganyane urged the pair to “smoke the peace pipe,” but to no avail. McBride cautioned MK Party MP Sibonelo Nomvalo to “watch it” during questioning about a court case involving his daughter.

MPs expressed frustration, accusing McBride of undermining the Ad Hoc Committee, particularly due to his gestures while MPs spoke. His outdated CV and reluctance to disclose his current employment raised concerns, with MPs arguing that it could not be a secret, as it had been announced that he was appointed as the director of the foreign branch of the State Security Agency.

Despite the tension, McBride indicated he could not help but smile while engaging with people. He also mentioned to the evidence leaders his dilemma regarding the disclosure of his workplace.

During his testimony, McBride was pressed on his concerns regarding Mkhwanazi, a close friend of the late IPID investigator Mandla Mahlangu, who was the first to arrive at the scene of Mahlangu's murder and did not attend his funeral.

McBride alleged that Mkhwanazi played an “undue and prosecutorial role” in attempts to disrupt investigations into former acting national police commissioner Khomotso Phahlane.

He clarified that O’Sullivan, whom he first met in 2014, never worked for IPID but was one of its information sources. “The fact that he provided information does not translate into controlling IPID. That is a fiction created by Phahlane,” he asserted.

However, ActionSA MP Dereleen James presented communication between McBride and attorney Sarah-Jane Trent, which included a message stating, “Give this to Paul.” “Earlier, you testified that you did not give information to these individuals. You said you only speak to them once a month, yet the records reflect you spoke to them every day, all day long. You have lied twice to this committee,” James accused.

McBride denied this, including the allegation of a romantic relationship with Trent.

Testifying before the Ad Hoc Committee, Mkhwanazi recounted his acquaintance with attempted murderer and accused tenderpreneur Vusi “Cat” Matlala.

“While Matlala is a director at Medicare24, he also owns Cat VIP Security. Our communication initially focused on collaboration to safeguard communities and provincial personnel. Subsequently, we grew closer, and he became like a brother to me,” he explained.

Mkhwanazi, who admitted to accepting money from Matlala, denied any involvement in the murder or the alleged cover-up, as claimed by whistleblower Marius van der Merwe, also known as “Witness D” at the Madlanga Commission.

Amid the testimonies, the Ad Hoc Committee has faced scrutiny, with some questioning whether it is fulfilling its intended purpose. Henriette Abrahams, a Cape Town activist, remarked that instead of a disciplined inquiry focused on institutional accountability, the proceedings often devolved into performance, partisanship, and superficial engagement.

“Yet throughout these hearings, committee members appeared to operate as fragmented party blocs—ANC, ActionSA, MK Party, DA, EFF, and others—rather than as a unified investigative unit. There was little evidence of a shared strategy for interrogating the witness, no sense of coordinated lines of inquiry, and no visible collective engagement with the full body of documentation placed before the committee,” Abrahams stated.

Political analyst Professor Dirk Kotze noted the differences between a commission of inquiry and the Ad Hoc Committee. He explained that in commissions, evidence leaders conduct all questioning, while in Parliament, most questions are posed by politicians.

“The members of Parliament are, in the first instance, members of their political parties. They tend, quite often, to do some posturing,” he said.

“Although they don't say it explicitly, it is very often about coming from a particular political position as a party, which determines how they are questioning the witnesses—whether they are more sympathetic towards them or more aggressive," says Kotze

"Sometimes they do it more to embarrass the persons or go into directions that I personally think are not very relevant, but for them, they might have a personal interest in that,"

"I think in the process, the Ad Hoc Committee is wasting a lot of time, and because of that, I'm not sure that they will be able to cover all the points in their terms of reference, because they have limited time left in order to conclude this,” Kotze added.

SUNDAY TRIBUNE