The debate between radio host Clement Manyathela and the caller, identified as Mjomane, highlights a critical tension in South African public life: the appropriate balance between admiration for whistleblowers and critical scrutiny of their claims.
Manyathela’s insistence that Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, the KwaZulu-Natal provincial police commissioner, “is not God” is a journalistic position aimed at maintaining professional objectivity, while Mjomane’s furious rebuttal reflects the profound public trust and emotional investment South Africans have placed in Mkhwanazi as a figure of incorruptible integrity.
This article, exceeding 2000 words, will dissect the core arguments presented in this explosive on-air confrontation, analyzing the implications for Mkhwanazi’s role, the media’s function, and the future of accountability in South Africa.
The segment begins with Manyathela offering a qualified endorsement of Mkhwanazi.
“Right. Jam Konaz is brave.”
“He’s noble.”
“I wish we had more public servants like him.”
This establishes a baseline of respect, acknowledging Mkhwanazi’s courage in exposing alleged corruption and criminal infiltration within the South African Police Service (SAPS), the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), and the judiciaryโrevelations that have led to a Parliamentary ad hoc committee investigation and a Judicial Commission of Inquiry (often referred to as the Madlanga Commission).
However, Manyathela immediately pivots to his professional duty of skepticism.
“But I don’t take him as God.”
“I don’t.”
“He’s an incredible person.”
“He has revealed incredible things.”
“But when he behaves in a manner that I think is weird, I’m going to say so.”
This statement is the spark that ignites Mjomane’s anger, symbolizing the collision between the public’s desperate need for a hero and the media’s constitutional obligation to question power, even when that power is deployed for good.
Manyathela defends his right, and the right of others, to ask hard questions without being branded as co-conspirators.
“And if you think I’m wrong, you’re welcome to also say that.”
“What we mustn’t do is cross the line now of trying to argue that because somebody disagrees with him then that person is part of the criminal cartel.”
He uses the example of Julius Malema, the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), as a case in point.
“I mean people have been attacking Julius Malma since when earlier this today well not even now.”
“Since was it last week or when Julius Malma was now under attack because of the questions he was asking insisting that the statement must be original to the parliamentary committee.”
Malema, despite his public support for Mkhwanazi’s anti-corruption mission, drew criticism for his rigorous cross-examination during the parliamentary hearings.
“Yesterday Julius Malma was asking Mazi about the issue of the judiciary.”
“He told Mkazi, you said the judiciary is corrupt, but you only gave us a name of a magistrate.”
“So when you said judiciary, this is what it means.”
Manyathela points out the irrationality of the backlash against Malema.
“Some people then attack him for asking that question because why are you questioning Mr. Mkonazi like that?”
“Come on guys.”
“Surely surely surely we are more than that.”
“We can analyze things more than that.”
“We can allow people to do their work in these parliamentarians without now.”
“What’s going to happen now?”
“We’re going to say Julius Mamem is also part of the criminal cartel.”
This sets the stage for Mjomane, the caller, who dismisses Manyathelaโs initial assertion as an unnecessary distraction.
“you don’t take as God or something like this.”
“It it’s unnecessary and it’s a useless e statement.”
“It’s a useless statement as if South Africans said that we cannot be questioned, you know.”
Mjomaneโs argument is that Mkhwanazi is already being rigorously interrogated by formal structuresโthe Parliamentary Committee and the Commissionโmaking Manyathela’s caution about deification redundant and, potentially, disingenuous.
“It’s a useless statement to or you don’t take him as God.”
“He cannot be I mean as we must not cross the line you know whereby you know we take somebody as God or something like that.”
“That’s that’s an implication in any case that you are saying who said that cannot be questioned has been questioned now by the commission and also by your committee.”
The caller then articulates the true source of public support, framing Mkhwanazi not as a deity, but as the only effective counterforce to pervasive corruption.
“South Africa, you have a man right now, the most powerful man currently is General Khan because through his honest integrity and and e being brave, fearlessness, let’s call it that.”
“He stood in front of the media, your colleagues and spoke revealing just but a bit of what is happening behind closed doors in SAPS and also with political people, politicians and high ranking officials being involved.”
Mjomane is effectively saying that Mkhwanaziโs moral authorityโhis willingness to risk his career and lifeโhas made him the most trusted person in the country, overshadowing even the formal power structures.
“A man took a stand, put his career on the line, his own life on the line for the sake of this country.”
“And he did not say things without evidence to an extent that he could reveal because some things are sensitive as we find out now in the advoc committee and also in in in in this makanga commission where some of the evidence needs to be showed behind closed doors or behind cameras as they as as they refer to it.”
The caller returns to Manyathela’s controversial statement, using it as a launchpad for a serious accusation against the media itself.
“You are coming here and saying that eh we shouldn’t take e I mean you don’t take h general kankamazi as god who is taking general kamuaz as godly.”
“The ad hoc committee now is questioning him.”
“It was a a a what you call in commission.”
“They questioned him and he said that he mentioned names and he said that he wants to question those people.”
“He wants to be given to to to to I mean an opportunity to question those people.”
“Those people must come and face him.”
“So I mean the man is all about accountability.”
“The very thing that you people don’t like.”
This is where the debate pivots from a professional disagreement to a searing accusation of media complicity in corruption.
“The thing is this BA tella you people are part and parcel of are part and parcel of of this whole machinery together with politicians and and because he implicated the media some of your colleagues are implicated has been part and parcel of corruption and nonsense that is happening in the country and complicity to it rather than being journalists and reporting.”
Mjomane suggests that the mediaโs critical stance on Mkhwanazi is not a function of journalistic integrity but a defensive reaction to the fact that Mkhwanazi’s allegations have exposed corrupt elements within the journalistic fraternity itself.
“So you don’t like that you people don’t like that Mwanazi has exposed some of your of your colleagues in the media.”
He reiterates the central point of public support, using powerful, evocative language.
“No one.”
“No South Africans taking corners as God.”
“It is just that you people don’t like the fact that muanas right now South Africans are standing behind muanas in their majority the most powerful person right now in the country is a gentleman from Kat particularly Peter Marisburg where he was born by the name of General Kangam Kuanas.”
Mjomane then offers an adoring portrait of Mkhwanazi’s competence, highlighting his intelligence and precision as much as his courage.
“you have never seen and he’s not just brave he’s intelligent precise nice sharp and he’s got a photographic memory.”
“He knows his story.”
The caller finally turns his skepticism not against Mkhwanazi, but against Manyathela’s reliance on Julius Malema’s dissenting voice as a credible source of doubt.
“You come here and quote Malmo.”
“No, Malma said something.”
“I mean, why would we trust anything that Malma says?”
“Yes, there are times that Malma is right.”
“But his integrity only is questionable as well because he’s a flip-flopper.”
“We know that South Africans.”
The public, Mjomane argues, applies a double standard based on an individual’s track record: Malema is a known “flip-flopper,” hence his criticisms are viewed “with question mark,” whereas Mkhwanazi “has not yet shown us that to be a flip-flopper but a man of integrity and a man who’s principled.”
This public sentiment creates a difficult bind for the media.
If journalists like Manyathela treat Mkhwanazi’s claims with the same degree of skepticism as they would a politician’s, they risk alienating a public that sees Mkhwanazi as their last hope against a corrupt system.
If they fail to scrutinize his claims, they abandon their role as watchdogs and risk being accused of hagiography or creating an untouchable figure.
The conversation ultimately reveals the deep pathology of trust in South Africa, born from years of unchecked corruption where institutions designed to ensure accountabilityโthe police, the judiciary, and even sections of the mediaโhave been compromised.
In such a desperate environment, Mkhwanaziโs fearless testimony transforms him into a secular saint, and any questioning of his motives or details is perceived as a form of treason against the national project of cleaning up the state.
“Sometimes one thing I have noticed about South Africans is that we really do look up to mas.”
“We adore Mukanas.”
“There’s no South African who does not adore Mukas.”
The caller concludes with a powerful emotional flourish, suggesting that only those complicit in the criminal enterprise could possibly oppose Mkhwanazi.
“Unless you are involved in any scandal that could take you or you are afraid that he can do something that could harm you or you’re not I I don’t understand how you’re not a fan of someone who’s trying to protect the country and he’s trying to protect the needs of everyone in a country like it’s giving I I have a lot of scandals with whoever that is involved in this criminal activities.”
This debate encapsulates the current socio-political drama in South Africa: a struggle for accountability where the lines between objective reporting and public advocacy have become dangerously blurred by the sheer gravity of the allegations.
It forces the reflection that in a democracy ravaged by corruption, the media’s insistence on critical distance may be interpreted by a despairing public as complicity, creating an inevitable, necessary, and vital tension for the future of democratic governance.
The fact that Mkhwanaziโs allegations touch directly on the involvement of high-ranking officials and politicians across various spheres, including the alleged disbanding of the Political Killings Task Team, underscores the high stakes of this entire investigation and why public passion runs so high.
Ultimately, Mjomane’s fury at Clement Manyathela’s caution is a cry of collective exhaustion and a desperate desire for an unblemished hero to finally deliver justice.
The ongoing discussions around the Madlanga Commission and the Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee, which are attempting to verify and act upon Mkhwanaziโs explosive claims of deep-seated criminal infiltration, will determine whether this public trust is rewarded or broken.
