The Controversial Conduct of the Senzo Maya Trial: A Breakdown of Cross-Examination and Disputes
We delve into the ongoing Senzo Maya trial, where procedural issues and dramatic cross-examinations have escalated tensions both inside and outside the courtroom.

The events taking place in this trial have sparked debates regarding its handling, the fairness of the proceedings, and whether the system is truly serving justice.

Yesterday, the first meeting of parliament’s ad hoc committee for 2026 saw a dramatic turn of events, particularly regarding the issue of whether judges should be called to testify before the committee.

This issue has long been a source of contention, and as we’ll see, it created a fiery exchange during the virtual meeting.

But let’s begin with some background before we jump into the details of the heated moments that unfolded yesterday.

A Timeline of the Committee’s Struggles
Initially, the committee was given a three-month period to conclude its work.

However, the deadline expired on the 31st of October 2025, without the committee completing its mandate.

It was then extended to the 28th of November 2025, the first extension.

Yet, despite this, the committee still couldn’t wrap things up, leading to a second and final postponement, which now runs until the 20th of February 2026.

While the committee struggles to make progress, one issue that came up repeatedly in the meetings was the topic of judges’ involvement in the trial.

The MKP party raised concerns that, despite law enforcement officials being summoned before the ad hoc committee, no judges had been brought in for questioning.

This sparked a furious response from Julius MMA, the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), who questioned why there were no names on the witness list—especially concerning the judiciary.

His comments stirred up a firestorm of debate, as the idea of questioning judges is both politically and legally sensitive.

MMA argued that accusations against judges were being thrown around without evidence, challenging the committee to produce names rather than simply engaging in hearsay.

To back his claim, MMA pointed out that he himself had criticized the Constitutional Court over its handling of the Palapala matter, suggesting that if any judge had been involved in corruption, they should be publicly named and questioned.

The MKP party retorted by highlighting MMA’s own past criticisms of the judiciary, particularly his critique of the Constitutional Court.

MMA’s response emphasized that no court was above the law, not even the Constitutional Court, which he said should be subjected to scrutiny like any other body.

This exchange, which involved passionate remarks, underscored the deepening division between political parties and the growing distrust towards the judiciary.

Key Testimonies and Cross-Examination Issues
Turning to the courtroom drama itself, one of the most contentious moments came during the cross-examination of Dr.

Makos.

The defense attempted to extract information about the communications between the accused, but Makos repeatedly denied knowing anything about the discussions or the details being questioned.

Despite this, the defense continued pushing, insisting that communications about specific events in 2019 must have occurred, even though Makos had no knowledge of them.

Makos stood his ground, claiming that he couldn’t confirm what he didn’t know, yet the defense persisted, which many felt was an unfair line of questioning.

One of the major points of contention was the suggestion that Makos had shared personal opinions during his testimony, something that would have been irrelevant in a court of law.

The defense tried to push him into agreeing that certain communications could have happened in 2019, even though he had no evidence to back this up.

This led to heated exchanges, with Makos insisting that his role was to simply offer his professional perspective, not to speculate on events that didn’t directly involve him.

Then came the issue of photos.

In a particularly strange moment, the defense attempted to introduce photographs into evidence, questioning when and where they had been taken.

The judge, however, quickly overruled objections and insisted on allowing the cross-examination of the photos.

This decision was contentious, with some questioning whether it was fair to present photos with unclear context or timing.

The Struggle for Clarity
Throughout these exchanges, the courtroom atmosphere became increasingly tense.

At one point, Dr.Maros, the witness, faced pressure to validate information he had not personally seen or was not involved in.

The defense sought to undermine his credibility by suggesting that his opinions, particularly about the potential fallout of revealing certain information, were somehow responsible for subsequent events.

This approach was widely criticized as unfair because it put the witness in an impossible position, forced to answer questions about things beyond his knowledge.

Additionally, the issue of the photographs and their timing continued to haunt the defense.

The judge allowed the examination to proceed despite the ongoing confusion about when these images were taken and their relevance to the case.

While the defense argued that the photos were key pieces of evidence, the objection raised by the opposing counsel focused on their clarity and the proper context in which they were taken.

This ongoing battle between the defense and the prosecution is becoming increasingly frustrating for those following the trial, as the procedural fairness of the case continues to be called into question.

The Bigger Picture

Beyond the courtroom drama, this trial has highlighted the broader issues plaguing South Africa’s justice system.

The committee’s lack of progress, the deep political division, and the alleged corruption within the judiciary have all raised concerns about the integrity of the country’s legal processes.

The failure to resolve these issues in a timely manner only exacerbates the growing mistrust among the public, with many wondering whether the justice system is capable of holding those in power accountable.

As the trial continues, many are questioning whether it will ever truly be able to bring clarity to the allegations being made.

The political pressure, legal complexities, and the high stakes of the case suggest that this trial will not only impact the lives of those directly involved but also the broader political landscape of South Africa.

What Lies Ahead
With still several witnesses to testify, it remains to be seen whether the ad hoc committee will meet its February deadline.

The continuing tension within the courtroom and the political ramifications of the trial suggest that it is unlikely that the case will wrap up smoothly.

However, as more information comes to light, it is clear that the pressure is mounting on both the judiciary and the government to take decisive action.

The road ahead remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: the outcome of this trial could have significant consequences for South Africa’s legal and political systems.

The trial, filled with procedural challenges and moments of tension, is a stark reminder of the complexities involved in ensuring justice is served, especially when high-level corruption is at play.