PARLIAMENT’S AD HOC COMMITTEE DIVIDES OVER DRAFT REPORT ON SAPS KZN INQUIRY
An Ad Hoc Committee of Parliament, mandated to investigate allegations against SAPS KZN Commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, spent hours yesterday locked in debate over the language and framing of its interim draft report, with the sharpest friction centred on how the committee should account for its own investigative limits.
The draft report acknowledges a consequential gap in scope. By not calling Maj-Gen Feroz Khan to testify, despite his repeated mention by other witnesses in connection with a drug investigation and allegations about his own conduct, the committee constrained its ability to probe and resolve certain matters relating to Crime Intelligence. The report states plainly that his absence limited the committee’s capacity to address conflicting allegations concerning Crime Intelligence disciplinary procedures, vetting processes, security-clearance protocols, and related operational disputes. That admission, and precisely how it should be worded, became the fault line in yesterday’s session.
Committee member David Skosana pressed for the report to reflect that “some members” had opposed calling Maj-Gen Khan as a witness at all. He also argued that removing the word “repeatedly” weakened the document’s accountability record. In Skosana’s view, “repeatedly” was essential context for understanding both the significance of Khan’s absence and the fact that Members of Parliament never had the opportunity to put allegations directly to him. His party, he indicated, was not satisfied with the current draft.
By contrast, committee member Leigh-Ann Mathys argued that “repeatedly” should be reworded or removed. Mathys emphasised that Maj-Gen Khan’s exclusion from the witness list was not a deliberate tactic. Several other individuals mentioned during testimony also did not appear, she noted, pointing to the committee’s compressed timeline as the binding constraint. The committee had been given a short deadline to complete its work, and that deadline, not any strategic decision, shaped who was called.
Multiple committee members raised the possibility that evidence presented at the Madlanga Commission might have altered their calculus on whether to call Maj-Gen Khan. The nature of that evidence and its specific implications were not detailed in the deliberations.
The committee’s accountability questions extended well beyond the Khan question. Members grappled with allegations involving former police minister Bheki Cele and his relationship with Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala. Committee member Mdumiseni Ntuli proposed that the report recommend the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation pursue allegations that Mr Cele may have improperly influenced tender awards during his tenure as police minister. The proposal also encompasses allegations related to the controversial Telkom Towers transaction and claims that Mr Cele benefited from organised crime.
Additional scrutiny fell on Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, currently on special leave of absence, and his alleged connections to businessman Brown Mogotsi and Mr Matlala. Mathys cautioned that the report should not be read as exonerating Mr Mchunu. She pointed to a section addressing the committee’s limitations and urged that it be clarified the committee was unable to fully interrogate much of the information presented to it. Skosana was more direct, indicating that Mr Mchunu had not been forthcoming about his relationship with Mr Mogotsi.
The committee’s deliberations on the draft report are scheduled to continue today. The disagreements over wording, scope, and what inferences the report should or should not draw reflect deeper questions about the committee’s mandate and the constraints under which it operated. Full details of the committee’s reasoning are available at https://www.parliament.gov.za/news/ad-hoc-committee-members-hold-differing-views-why-maj-gen-feroz-khan-was-not-called.
Whether the final report will carry dissenting views or qualifying footnotes from members who believe the current draft either overstates or understates its investigative gaps remains the open question as the committee reconvenes.