The commission hearing unfolded with pointed questions, visible tension, and growing scrutiny around contradictions in sworn statements, the so-called “impala controversy,” and allegations involving Mr. Mlala.

At the center of the examination was a senior police general whose previous written submissions to Parliament and to the commission appeared to differ on key details — particularly regarding when he first met Mr. Mlala.

In earlier proceedings before an ad hoc parliamentary committee, as well as in a written statement, the general had indicated that he first met Mr. Mlala in February 2024.

However, in a subsequent sworn statement before the commission, he stated that the first meeting occurred in January 2024.

The evidence leader pressed him to explain the discrepancy.

 

The general responded that he first met Mr. Mlala when the latter arrived at his office accompanied by his lawyer.

According to his version, the meeting was arranged formally after a letter from the lawyer.

He insisted that he preferred official engagement in his office rather than informal discussions elsewhere.

As for the date discrepancy, he downplayed it, suggesting that he may not have had the relevant documentation in front of him when previously testifying.

He maintained that, according to the letter and the dates in his file, the correct date was January 2024.

 

When asked how many times he interacted with Mr. Mlala after that initial meeting, he stated that he had met him physically fewer than five times in his life and had spoken to him on the phone fewer than three times.

He emphasized that there was no regular communication and that Mr. Mlala was not someone with whom he maintained an ongoing relationship.

The inquiry then shifted to allegations surrounding the acquisition or delivery of impalas — antelope — to the general’s property.

In his affidavit, he categorically denied that he acquired or received any impalas from Mr.Mlala “or from any other person for that matter.” This phrasing became the focus of intense questioning.

Commissioners pointed out that by denying acquisition from “any person,” he appeared to contradict another version suggesting that a Zimbabwean friend may have provided the animals.

The general attempted to clarify, arguing that his denial referred to his own perspective — that he did not personally acquire impalas through purchase or as a gift from Mr. Mlala or anyone else.

He suggested that nuances of language were being overemphasized.

 

However, a more significant concern arose from his affidavit itself.

Over several pages addressing the impala controversy, nowhere did he state that in March 2024 he owned impalas on his property.

Yet when shown photographs, he acknowledged that the animals depicted were indeed impalas.

Commissioners highlighted that he had access to these photos and to another affidavit over the weekend before submitting his statement, yet failed to include this clarification.

 

The general responded by explaining that when drafting an affidavit under intense scrutiny, certain details may not be fully elaborated unless specific questions prompt them.

He suggested that omissions were not intentional concealments but rather the result of drafting choices under pressure.

Attention then turned to recorded conversations and messages allegedly discussing the delivery of animals to his property.

The timeline showed that discussions about impalas and their delivery occurred on 8 May 2025, prior to Mr. Mlala’s arrest on 14 May 2025.

The general acknowledged hearing the evidence but distanced himself from those conversations, stating that discussions between other individuals did not involve him directly.

 

He maintained that he never discussed impalas with Mr. Mlala or Mr.Motzi and that the only person he had spoken to regarding impalas was Sergeant Enorsy.

When pressed about why others would discuss delivering animals to his property if there was no such arrangement, he reiterated that he personally had no involvement in those discussions.

 

The commission also examined the status of statements allegedly made by Mr. Mlala while in custody.

The general questioned whether the statement being referenced was a confession, an admission, or merely an informal interrogation record.

He expressed concern about the circumstances under which it was obtained, suggesting that if proper procedures were not followed, its legal standing could be questionable.

He raised the possibility that junior officers may have conducted informal questioning without adhering to formal confession procedures.

He also alleged that task team members had previously attempted to persuade Mr. Mlala to cooperate against him.

In that context, he argued that he was being asked to respond to statements whose authenticity and procedural integrity were uncertain.

 

Commissioners responded that the evidence had been placed before the commission and that fairness required giving him an opportunity to respond.

They emphasized that clear answers would benefit him.

 

The hearing then moved to allegations that Mr.  Mlala had brought cash — allegedly R300,000 — to the general’s son’s engagement celebration.

The general firmly rejected this claim.

He described the event as a modest family gathering financed collectively by family members.

He explained that his wife used a credit card to purchase groceries, and other relatives contributed cakes and food.

He insisted that there was no need for financial assistance from Mr. Mlala and that no such contribution was requested or received.

He further argued that if such a large cash amount had truly been offered, it would have been delivered earlier in the day rather than late at night.

He emphasized that no personal friends of his attended the event — it was strictly a family occasion.

He characterized the R300,000 allegation as unfounded and dismissed it outright.

 

Another area of dispute concerned the presence of Mrs. Mlala at his home.

The general testified that he had invited Major General Tema and that Mrs.Mlala came along because she was close to General Tema.

However, an affidavit from General Cintum indicated that Mrs. Mlala arrived independently and was not necessarily brought by Major General Tema.

The commissioner clarified that the issue was not who invited her, but rather how she came to be present.

The general acknowledged that perhaps he had not clearly stated that all individuals arrived together, but maintained that he had permitted her attendance because she needed to accompany someone.

 

The commission also examined social media posts by Musa Kawula, who had published allegations against Mr. Mlala, including claims of fraud and connections to high-profile crimes.

The general stated that he knew of Kawula only as someone who frequently posts allegations about many individuals, not through personal acquaintance.

 

Messages were presented showing that General Shibiri forwarded Kawula’s posts to Sergeant Enorsy, along with messages suggesting that someone was attempting to extort money from Mr.  Mlala by threatening publication.

The commissioner asked why the general appeared to be following Kawula’s posts closely.

The general denied any special interest in Kawula, stating that as a senior officer he monitors arrests and suspects across the country as part of routine reporting.

He emphasized that thousands of arrests are made weekly and that his oversight is broad, not focused on a single individual.

 

Finally, the commissioner asked whether he had spoken to Brigadier Raanga during the operation to arrest Mr. Mlala.

The general responded that he could neither categorically deny nor confirm without reviewing details, but acknowledged that since Raanga was leading the task team, communication on the day of the arrest was possible.

 

Throughout the hearing, the central themes were consistency, credibility, and procedural integrity.

The commission scrutinized discrepancies in dates, the absence of explicit statements about impala ownership, the interpretation of language in affidavits, the authenticity and legal status of statements made in custody, allegations of financial contributions, and possible influence over operational decisions.

The general maintained his denials of wrongdoing, rejected allegations of receiving animals or cash, and questioned the reliability of certain statements used against him.

Commissioners, however, repeatedly highlighted inconsistencies and omissions, signaling that the credibility of his testimony remains under careful evaluation.