The Ad Hoc Committee (ADOC) has once again convened virtually to map out its next steps after being granted an additional extension to conclude its work by the end of March.

The extension underscores both the complexity of the issues before the committee and the logistical challenges that have slowed its progress.

With several high-profile witnesses still outstanding, the coming weeks are expected to be decisive.

 

One of the key figures yet to appear before the committee is Brown Mogotsi.

His testimony is considered central to clarifying several contested matters currently under review.

However, repeated attempts to secure his appearance have encountered complications.

According to committee representatives, difficulties in contacting Mogotsi have delayed his formal statement.

Further complicating matters, Mogotsi informed the committee that he had received a summons from the Mdlanga Commission of Inquiry requiring his attendance between the 23rd and 27th of February.

These dates directly clash with the committee’s schedule, creating a scheduling impasse.

 

The committee has allocated one day for Mogotsi’s appearance but has indicated that additional time may be necessary to finalize his testimony if complex issues arise.

Another scheduling obstacle looms in the form of the national budget speech, set to take place on Wednesday.

Parliamentary commitments during budget week inevitably compress available time for hearings.

President Cyril Ramaphosa also falls within the committee’s scope of inquiry.

For now, the president will not appear in person but has been issued a consolidated list of 122 written questions.

These questions were drawn from multiple political parties and stakeholders.

Submissions included four questions from counsel, 102 from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), nine from the MK Party, fourteen from the African National Congress (ANC), and seven from the Democratic Alliance (DA).

Parliamentary legal services reviewed and consolidated these submissions, merging duplicates and producing a final structured list.

 

The volume and breadth of the questions highlight the political significance of the inquiry.

The president’s written responses are expected to play a pivotal role in shaping the committee’s conclusions.

 

Meanwhile, legal tensions have emerged involving members of the media.

News24 journalist Karyn Maughan and Daily Maverick associate editor Marianne Thamm have challenged testimony previously given by former acting National Police Commissioner General Khomotso Phahlane.

They argue that certain statements made against them require rebuttal and clarification.

Their legal representatives have sought relief that would allow their version of events to be formally presented before the witness.

They maintain that if evidence is not substantiated, the witness should retract statements and issue an apology.

However, the committee chairperson ruled that the relief sought was inappropriate within the current procedural framework.

Instead, the journalists have been directed either to submit their position in writing or to appear before the committee to give evidence directly.

 

This ruling reinforces the committee’s procedural approach, emphasizing adherence to established evidentiary processes rather than informal rebuttals.

It also underscores the delicate balance between investigative oversight and media freedom.

 

The coming weeks will feature a series of scheduled appearances by key individuals.

Private investigator Paul O’Sullivan is set to return to the committee on Thursday.

His previous testimony has already generated significant public interest, and evidence leaders have indicated that new correspondence and matters have emerged that they intend to raise with him.

 

Deputy National Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Tebello Mosikili (as referenced in reports) is scheduled to appear on the 3rd of March.

His testimony is expected to address operational and administrative aspects relevant to the inquiry.

 

On the 5th of March, National Coloured Congress leader and Member of Parliament Fadiel Adams is slated to testify, along with Sarah-Jane Thrent, who serves as Paul O’Sullivan’s personal assistant.

Their appearances may provide additional context surrounding contested interactions and allegations.

A particularly significant testimony is scheduled for the 10th of March, when former Gauteng Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Mlotshwa (as cited in proceedings) is expected to explain why criminal charges against Paul O’Sullivan have remained in abeyance since 2017.

According to earlier legal conditions, these charges can only proceed once the Phahlane-related case is finalized.

The committee aims to clarify whether procedural delays or legal constraints have contributed to this prolonged status.

 

In mid-March, Generals Klam Kanazi, Fimasa, and Dumisani Kumalo are also expected to reappear before the committee.

Their return signals that certain aspects of earlier testimony require further examination or clarification.

 

The cumulative schedule illustrates the breadth of the committee’s mandate.

What initially appeared to be a targeted inquiry has expanded into a complex web of legal, administrative, and political dimensions.

Each witness contributes to a broader narrative involving law enforcement conduct, prosecutorial decisions, and institutional accountability.

 

The committee’s extension until the end of March reflects the gravity of the issues under scrutiny.

While extensions can draw criticism for perceived delays, they also indicate an attempt to ensure thoroughness.

In high-stakes investigations involving senior officials, procedural integrity is paramount.

Political dynamics also hover in the background.

The fact that over one hundred questions directed at the president originate from the EFF underscores the opposition’s determination to extract detailed accountability.

Meanwhile, contributions from the ANC and other parties suggest that even within the governing majority there is recognition of the inquiry’s importance.

 

The scheduling clash with the national budget speech highlights the intersection of governance responsibilities.

Parliament must balance its oversight functions with legislative obligations, particularly during critical fiscal announcements.

 

At its core, the ADOC inquiry reflects a broader struggle to reinforce institutional credibility.

Allegations involving police leadership, prosecutorial discretion, and interactions with investigative figures such as O’Sullivan have raised concerns about transparency and governance standards.

 

By consolidating questions, compelling testimony, and revisiting contested evidence, the committee seeks to build a comprehensive record.

Whether its findings will result in policy changes, disciplinary action, or legislative reform remains to be seen.

 

As March approaches, the pace of hearings is expected to intensify.

The testimony of Mogotsi, O’Sullivan, senior police officials, and prosecutorial figures could shape the final report in significant ways.

The extension granted to the committee may prove decisive in allowing these threads to converge into a coherent conclusion.

Public attention remains high, as each development contributes to a larger conversation about accountability and institutional integrity.