Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee investigating allegations made by SAPS KwaZulu-Natal provincial commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, discussed whether President Cyril Ramaphosa should appear in person before the committee or submit an affidavit. Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee investigating allegations made by SAPS KwaZulu-Natal provincial commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, spent most of its meeting on Monday debating whether President Cyril Ramaphosa should appear in person before the committee or submit an affidavit. The committee met to discuss and finalise housekeeping matters, as time speedily moves towards the 20 February deadline for the committee.
The meeting follows last week’s hearing, where several civil society organisations and members of the public appeared to give presentations and evidence to the committee that spoke to political interference and inefficiencies within the current legislation. Tuesday’s hearing will resume with the appearance of four witnesses, Mr Xolile Mashukuca, Mr Pilasande Dotyeni, and two others who wish to remain anonymous. Most of the hearing on Monday, however, saw the committee rehash the matter of forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan and North West businessman Brown Mogotsi.
Both of whom had raised concerns about security reasons behind their unwillingness to appear before the committee. The MPs had previously resolved to write to the Speaker of Parliament, Thoko Didiza, to subpoena both witnesses. In her response to the committee on the O’Sullivan matter, she said: “I am advised that the jurisdictional facts that must be present before I may concur with the issuing of a summons is a failure or refusal by a witness, without sufficient cause, to appear before the Committee.
Read Full Article on The Mercury
[paywall]
“In the premises, I am loath to grant concurrence in circumstances where there is an absence of demonstrable proof that the committee has indeed engaged with Mr O’Sullivan’s reasons regarding his application to appear before the committee virtually,” Didiza said. In the matter of Mogotsi, Didiza said: “I am disinclined to grant concurrence in circumstances where there is an absence of demonstrable proof that the committee has indeed engaged with Mr Mogotsi’s personal security proposals regarding his anticipated physical appearance before the committee.” She encouraged the committee to meet and discuss a way forward, which saw the members again debated the matter on Monday.
[/paywall]
