The recent Ad Hoc Committee meeting held on July 6, 2025, was marked by intense debate, sharp exchanges, and significant procedural discussions as members sought to establish a firm foundation for investigating serious allegations.
Central to the session were contentious remarks about the evidentiary status of statements made by Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi, the absence of the chief legal advisor, and political tensions surrounding the committee’s leadership.
Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), notably defended General Mkhwanazi and called for unity and respect among members as the committee embarked on its critical mandate.
The meeting opened with a legal advisor stating that the testimony provided by Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi on July 6 was “not evidence in a technical sense.
” This comment immediately sparked concern and debate among committee members.
Several members expressed discomfort with the assertion, arguing that it was premature and dismissive to declare Mkhwanazi’s statements as non-evidence before the committee had even agreed on the terms of reference that would define what constitutes admissible evidence.
Committee members emphasized the need for a clear legal framework and called for the draft terms of reference to be circulated promptly to all members for review and input.
They agreed on a deadline for submissions by Friday noon, with the intention of consolidating proposals and holding a virtual meeting the following week to finalize the terms.
This approach was seen as essential to ensure transparency, inclusivity, and a solid legal foundation for the committee’s work.
However, the absence of the chief legal advisor during this critical initial meeting was a significant point of contention.
Members voiced frustration that the senior legal official responsible for guiding the committee was not present to provide authoritative advice.
This absence raised doubts about the committee’s preparedness and the adequacy of legal support, especially given the gravity of the allegations under investigation.
The committee’s leadership also came under scrutiny.
Julius Malema and other members highlighted concerns about the chairperson’s affiliation with the ruling African National Congress (ANC), questioning whether this would undermine public confidence in the committee’s impartiality.
The chairperson was elected uncontested, but the timing and optics of this appointment stirred unease among opposition parties and civil society observers.
ActionSA, represented by one of its members, openly expressed discomfort with the chairperson’s ANC ties and called for political parties to abstain from nominating chairs to foster greater public trust.
The EFF echoed this sentiment, urging the committee to rise above partisan politics and focus on delivering a credible, transparent investigation.
Despite these concerns, several members urged that the committee respect democratic processes and work collaboratively regardless of political affiliations.
They stressed that the committee’s mandate transcends party politics and that members must prioritize the interests of the South African public over partisan considerations.
Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly called for respectful dialogue and constructive engagement.
The chairperson reminded members that parliament is the highest locus of power in the republic and that their conduct should reflect the dignity and seriousness of their responsibilities.
Julius Malema echoed this call, urging members to leave personal and party differences at the door and come together as representatives of the people.
He emphasized that the committee’s success depends on members’ ability to work collaboratively, uphold the rule of law, and focus on uncovering the truth behind the allegations.
Malema also addressed the controversy surrounding the legal advisor’s remarks, asserting that it was inappropriate for technical staff to make definitive judgments about evidence before the committee had agreed on procedural rules.
He defended General Mkhwanazi’s testimony, noting that it was supported by attached evidence and deserved to be treated with due respect.
Despite the heated exchanges, the committee reached several important procedural agreements.
Members agreed that:
– The draft terms of reference would be circulated promptly to all committee members.
– Political parties and individual members would submit their proposals and comments by Friday noon.
– A virtual meeting would be scheduled for the following week to discuss and finalize the terms of reference and committee program.
– Communication channels, including a WhatsApp group, would be established to facilitate information sharing and coordination.
These steps are intended to ensure that the committee’s work proceeds efficiently, transparently, and with broad input from all political parties represented.
The committee’s work comes at a time when public trust in parliamentary processes is fragile.
Many South Africans are weary of commissions and committees that fail to deliver meaningful outcomes.
The visible political tensions and disagreements during the meeting risk reinforcing public skepticism.
Opposition members warned against using the committee as a platform for political point-scoring or populist rhetoric.
Instead, they called for a sober, evidence-based approach focused on delivering justice and accountability.
The chairperson and members acknowledged these concerns and pledged to conduct the investigation with integrity and impartiality.
They recognized that their actions would be closely scrutinized by the public and media, and that maintaining credibility is essential to fulfilling their mandate.
Julius Malema’s intervention underscored the importance of unity and professionalism.
He reminded members that they serve the same parliament, represent the same people, and share a common responsibility to uphold the constitution and the law.
Malema urged members to:
– Avoid personal attacks and partisan conflicts within the committee.
– Respect democratic processes and decisions.
– Focus on the committee’s core task of uncovering the truth.
– Ensure that their conduct inspires confidence rather than cynicism.
He stressed that the committee’s work should not be derailed by political infighting but should instead serve as a model of how parliament can effectively address serious national issues.
The Ad Hoc Committee meeting on July 6, 2025, marked a critical juncture in South Africa’s efforts to address serious allegations through parliamentary oversight.
While the session exposed underlying political tensions and procedural challenges, it also demonstrated a commitment among members to establish a clear and inclusive framework for investigation.
The controversy over the legal advisor’s comments and the absence of the chief legal advisor highlighted the need for strong legal guidance and clarity on evidentiary standards.
Meanwhile, debates over the chairperson’s political affiliation reflected broader concerns about impartiality and public trust.
Julius Malema’s call for unity, respect, and focus on the committee’s mandate serves as a reminder that parliamentary oversight requires cooperation beyond party lines.
The committee’s success will depend on its ability to navigate political differences, adhere to the rule of law, and deliver transparent and credible findings.
As the committee moves forward with drafting terms of reference, soliciting input from political parties, and scheduling follow-up meetings, all eyes will be on how effectively it can fulfill its important role.
The South African public, eager for accountability and justice, will be watching closely.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
