Members of parliament’s ad hoc committee investigating alleged criminal justice system corruption have dismissed a letter from suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu challenging a draft evidentiary overview presented by evidence leaders last week.
Evidence leader Norman Arendse presented the draft overview on May 28, detailing findings from testimonies brought before the committee. The committee is scheduled to deliberate on the report, assess the evidence and formulate its official findings and recommendations by June 12.
Though the committee has not yet deliberated on the draft or finalised its findings, Mchunu, through his lawyers, sent a letter dated June 3 alleging the evidence leaders had pre-empted the process. He claimed they made independent findings without consulting committee members.
The ad hoc committee, established to investigate allegations of corruption and political interference in the criminal justice system, held a housekeeping meeting on Thursday to address the matter. Mchunu is one of the central figures in the investigations.
Parliamentary legal adviser Andile Tetyana said Mchunu’s letter argued the evidence leaders had made findings the committee is legally obligated to make itself, failing to exercise independent judgment according to its terms of reference.
“The minister’s lawyers submit that adopting such an approach is prejudicial to their client’s rights,” Tetyana said. “They argue it’s impermissible for the evidence leaders to step into the shoes of the committee and become decision-makers, particularly in circumstances where no party has been afforded the right to make submissions.”
To clarify the misunderstanding, Tetyana explained the distinction between the different reports.
“The document presented to the committee on May 28 is not a draft committee report. It is a draft evidentiary overview, which is why it is watermarked by the evidence leaders themselves as a final draft.
“Its purpose is to structure the evidence, contextualise the committee’s terms of reference, and turn raw allegations and testimonies into an organised institutional record for the committee’s deliberations.”
He said referring to the document as a draft committee report was a “mischaracterisation”, emphasising MPs have yet to debate it.
“Members of the committee decide on the evidence, not the evidence leaders. The committee has not deliberated on the summary placed before it but will do so at the appropriate time.”
Tetyana said once the committee deliberates and drafts a provisional report, it will ensure anyone facing adverse findings is given an opportunity to respond. He recommended the committee write back to Mchunu’s lawyers to clarify the process.
Committee members slammed Mchunu for complaining prematurely. ANC MP Khusela Diko argued the letter anticipated a problem that does not exist.
“It’s unfortunate and too early for the minister to want to raise what he believes is prejudicial conduct against him, and we reject the notion that evidence leaders acted outside their scope,” Diko said.
Other political parties shared the same sentiment, including committee chairperson Soviet Lekganyane.
“The action is premature,” Lekganyane said. “His lawyers were supposed to advise him correctly. The minister knows parliamentary procedure and should know at this stage the committee doesn’t have an official report. We only have draft reports before us for deliberation. They could have waited.”
Lekganyane said all affected parties will be given an opportunity to review the provisional report before it is officially submitted to parliament.
TimesLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.