The assassination of a witness at the end of the second phase of theMadlanga commission’s inquiry— during which those implicated in corruption in the criminal justice system responded to the allegations against them — has cast doubt on the state’s ability to protect those who come forward to hold powerful people accountable. The co-chairs of theNational Joint Operational and Intelligence Structure(Natjoints) — comprising the South African Police Service, the South African National Defence Force and the State Security Agency — on Monday met officials from the Madlanga commission over the killing of Witness D, identified as Marius van der Merwe, who was shot dead at his home in Brakpan on Friday. “While extensive measures have been put in place to secure witnesses and officials since the start of the commission, the meeting identified a need to heighten these measures by roping in the Natjoints and all other relevant role players,” a statement said.
Witness D had testified at the Madlanga commission about the extrajudicial killing of a robbery suspect and implicated suspended Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department (EMPD) deputy chief Julius Mkhwanazi. Mkhwanazi himself appeared before the commission last week to defend hisinvolvement in the blue-lights sagain which murder-accusedVusimusi “Cat” Matlala’ssecurity company, CAT VIP Protection, was fitted with lights usually reserved for law enforcement. Mkhwanazi had indicated during his testimony that he was aware of Witness D’s identity, prompting the commissioners to urge him not to reveal the name.
In a media briefing at the weekend, Justice and Constitutional Development MinisterMmamoloko Kubayisaid Van der Merwe had declined witness protection because he believed he did not need it and because he ran his own security company. As a result of the assassination, the department saw a need toreview how witnesses testifiedbefore the Madlanga commission to ensure its work was not compromised, Kubayi said. “Initially, the commission had intended to do certain testimonies in camera.
Read Full Article on Mail & Guardian
[paywall]
They changed this approach after being threatened with litigation. We want to appeal that the commission revisit this and reconsider the strategy so that there is no threat to witness safety,” she said. “I say this because we were concerned that the public and the media were able to identify Mr van der Merwe as Witness D.” Kubayi said neither she nor the commissioners knew the identity of Witness D.
“Only those who worked directly to obtain the statement knew. This worries us greatly and is why we say there is a need to review how this is happening.”
[/paywall]
