In a tense and highly charged parliamentary session, Julius Malema, the outspoken leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), interrupted proceedings to challenge the legal handling of General Mkhwanazi’s testimony before the ad hoc parliamentary committee.

The confrontation brought to light significant procedural and constitutional concerns regarding the acceptance and validation of witness statements in parliamentary inquiries, highlighting the friction between different arms of government and the role of legal advisors in these processes.

The session began with the formal call for General Mkhwanazi to be sworn in as the committee’s first witness.

However, Malema immediately raised a fundamental objection, questioning the legitimacy of administering an oath to General Mkhwanazi in the absence of an original statement submitted directly to the parliamentary committee.

Malema contended that the committee only had before it a “supplementary statement” purportedly supplementing a prior statement given to the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, rather than an original sworn statement addressed explicitly to parliament.

Malema’s argument was rooted in the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and procedural propriety.

He emphasized that the committee was not a subsidiary or junior body to the Madlanga Commission, which was established by the executive branch.

Therefore, relying on statements made to an executive-appointed commission, rather than a direct statement to the parliamentary committee, was constitutionally improper.

He insisted that for the committee’s records and for historical accountability, General Mkhwanazi needed to provide a statement explicitly made to parliament, which would then become an official parliamentary document archived for posterity.

The legal team supporting the committee responded by clarifying their position.

They explained that General Mkhwanazi had indeed sworn a statement before the committee, which they termed a “supplementary statement” because much of the factual background had already been covered in his testimony at the Madlanga Commission.

They argued that this supplementary statement was intended to avoid unnecessary repetition and that the committee had coordinated with the commission’s evidence leaders to ensure consistency and availability of the witness.

The legal representative also highlighted the practical challenges faced: General Mkhwanazi had been unavailable to provide a statement to the parliamentary committee until after completing his testimony at the Madlanga Commission.

The supplementary statement was thus presented as a continuation or elaboration of his previous sworn evidence, with the original Madlanga Commission testimony incorporated by reference.

Despite this explanation, Malema remained unconvinced and vocally criticized the approach.

He accused the legal team of mishandling the situation and misleading the committee by labeling the first statement as supplementary.

Malema stressed that the initial statement made to the parliamentary committee should be the primary document and that it was unacceptable to treat it as secondary or supplementary to a commission’s record.

He argued that if the document before them was indeed the original statement intended for parliament, it should be properly titled and recognized as such, not as a supplementary statement.

Malema’s frustration was not just procedural but also symbolic.

He underscored the importance of the committee’s independence from the executive branch and the need to uphold parliamentary authority by ensuring that all evidence before it was properly submitted and sworn.

His remarks suggested a broader concern about the erosion of parliamentary oversight and the potential for executive interference through the use of commission reports and testimonies.

The legal team sought to mediate this dispute by emphasizing the complementary nature of the two institutions—the parliamentary committee and the Madlanga Commission—and the practicality of having overlapping witnesses and evidence.

They suggested that while the parliamentary committee’s statement should be considered the primary document for their proceedings, the statement given to the commission remained relevant for context and cross-reference.

However, Malema’s insistence on procedural correctness and transparency resonated with other committee members, who appeared sympathetic to his concerns about the legal team’s handling of the matter.

He questioned why the committee was being asked to accept a supplementary statement as the primary evidence and why General Mkhwanazi was being called to testify without a properly designated original statement.

The debate also touched on the legal technicalities of oath-taking.

Malema challenged the notion that General Mkhwanazi’s oath before the Madlanga Commission could substitute for an oath before the parliamentary committee.

He argued that taking an oath twice on the same statement was redundant and unnecessary, but he also maintained that the parliamentary committee had a right to receive a sworn statement directly addressed to it.

This highlighted the tension between formal legal procedures and practical considerations in parliamentary inquiries.

The session revealed deeper issues about the relationship between parliament and executive commissions, the role of legal counsel in guiding parliamentary committees, and the importance of clear and transparent processes in public hearings.

Malema’s intervention served as a reminder of the critical need for parliamentary committees to assert their independence and ensure that their procedures meet constitutional standards.

This confrontation over General Mkhwanazi’s statement and oath-taking process is emblematic of broader challenges facing parliamentary oversight in South Africa.

Parliamentary committees must navigate complex interactions with executive commissions, manage overlapping jurisdictions, and maintain procedural integrity while conducting investigations of national importance.

Malema’s forceful stance also underscores the political dimensions of such inquiries.

As a prominent opposition figure, Malema’s insistence on strict adherence to parliamentary procedures reflects a broader skepticism toward executive influence and a demand for accountability and transparency.

His role in this episode highlights how parliamentary oversight is not only a legal and procedural matter but also a political battleground where principles of democracy and governance are contested.

In conclusion, the interruption by Julius Malema during the parliamentary session to grill lawyers over the handling of General Mkhwanazi’s statements exposed significant procedural and constitutional questions.

It brought to the forefront the necessity for parliamentary committees to receive original, sworn statements directly addressed to them, rather than relying on supplementary documents linked to executive commissions.

The episode illustrated the delicate balance between legal technicalities, political accountability, and institutional independence that defines parliamentary oversight in South Africa.

Moving forward, it will be crucial for parliamentary committees and their legal advisors to ensure clarity, transparency, and adherence to constitutional principles to maintain public trust and uphold the integrity of democratic processes.