MK Party MP Vusi Shongwe loomed large at the Ad Hoc Committee on Wednesday over his evidence at the Madlanga Commission regarding the non-appearance of Crime Intelligence's General Feroz Khan before the committee.
Image: X
Several parties on Wednesday dismissed MK Party MP Vusi Shongwe’s testimony at the Madlanga Commission over the non-appearance of Crime Intelligence Major-General Feroz Khan before the Ad Hoc Committee.
Shongwe told the Madlanga Commission on Tuesday that it was difficult to get Khan to testify before the committee because of resistance from the members of the committee and singled out EFF leader Julius Malema.
“The only thing is that on that day, Honourable Malema was the most vocal in not getting General Khan to come there,” he said.
EFF MP Leigh-Ann Mathys raised the matter when the Ad Hoc Committee met to deliberate on its preliminary report.
Mathys challenged Shongwe’s assertion that the decision not to bring Khan was based on Malema, saying no one person ran the committee.
Mathys suggested that they write to the commission and clarify that the decision that Khan did not give evidence was made by the committee.
“It was not made by one member of the committee because it is reducing the committee to a one-man show and that is incorrect,” she added.
DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach clarified that decisions were taken by the committee.
“There is no individual decision taken here,” she said.
Breytenbach also said witnesses that appeared before the committee had complained to her that their evidence was discussed at the Madlanga Commission without an opportunity to defend themselves despite the committee promising protection.
“They have taken offence to the member of the committee who went to the commission and, in effect, thrashed them. I would advise them to send complaints to the committee in writing,” she said.
ANC MP Khusela Sangoni-Diko said the committee needed to agree on the treatment of revelations that came from the commission subsequent to the completion of its work.
“We may not have a specific position, but we need to agree on what we do and how we respond,” she said before supporting that aggrieved witnesses should write to the committee following Shongwe's testimony before the Madlanga Commission.
ANC MP Xola Nqola said the decision on Khan was based on evidence from Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
“It is important to say here that that is what, in the main, made the committee not consider calling General Khan to appear before the committee,” Nqola said.
He added that other members may have echoed other views and stated that had he known some of the issues that have emerged, he would have supported Khan’s appearance.
However, MK Party MP David Skosana said his party had fought over Khan’s appearance.
“There was an issue about General Khan. It sounded like one was personal,” Skosana said.
He further said the issue of Khan haunted him, as other witnesses had named him in their testimonies.
“We must own up that General Khan was supposed to be called here. We dropped the ball on that one,” he said before stating that Khan’s appearance was discussed by the committee three times.
Mathys said the issue was not about dropping the ball and that not one person influenced the decisions, and then pointed out that there were many issues her party had lobbied for but never got its way.
Echoing Nqola, Mathys stated that the decision on Khan was based on Mkhwanazi’s testimony that he had cleared him at a disciplinary hearing.
Patriotic Alliance MP Ashley Sauls said it was important to protect the integrity of the committee.
Sauls said many witnesses were proposed but were never called.
He dismissed Skosana’s assertion that the committee dropped the ball.
“I have a problem with a statement made to look like the committee’s intention as a joint body made a decision to protect General Khan when none of us, and in my case, don't know him. I have a problem with giving the impression that the MK Party was visionary and the rest of the committee went against the MK Party to protect General Khan,” said Sauls.
Committee Chairperson Soviet Lekganyane said they took ownership of the decisions taken by the committee.
“As chair, I can assure you that in all meetings I presided over, I was at my highest level of sobriety and that is why I kept my notebook and took notes.
“There is not any other decision that has been taken in our meetings that we were induced to, that we were under duress, that we would have been bribed to arrive at such a decision,” he said.
Lekganyane took the committee through how they arrived at witnesses who gave evidence, with both members and MPs making submissions before decisions were taken.
“We are to stand by those decisions because they are our decisions.”
Lekganyane said they would do an overview of whatever issues that would have emerged during the proceedings and the matters relating to witnesses when they conclude their work.
“If members have more issues they want to put on the agenda, they may make such a submission,” Lekganyane said.