Minister challenges draft report on alleged police capture

SA's suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu has challenged a draft report prepared by the evidence leaders of Parliament’s ad hoc committee, arguing that it contains findings that pre-empt the committee’s work and prejudice his rights, reports the Mail & Guardian. Parliament’s legal adviser, Andile Tetyana, said: ‘At the heart of his correspondence is an allegation that, in presenting their evidentiary overview, the evidence leaders have pre-empted this process by making findings across the entire scope of the terms of reference,’ Tetyana told the committee. In their evidentiary overview, the evidence leaders concluded that Mchunu acted outside constitutional and legal boundaries by issuing a directive in December 2024 to disband the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT) without consulting the President, the National Police Commissioner, the National Prosecuting Authority or the State Security Agency. Mchunu’s lawyers argue that the evidence leaders had exceeded their mandate by effectively assuming the role of decision-makers. ‘They argue that it is 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.’

President Cyril Ramaphosa placed Mchunu on special leave in 2025 following KZN Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s explosive July briefing which led to the establishment of both the ad hoc parliamentary inquiry and Madlanga Commission into alleged police capture. The committee is investigating claims that Mchunu acted improperly when he ordered the disbandment of the PKTT. The report also found evidence suggesting that Mchunu misled Parliament about the reasons for disbanding the unit, according to the M&G. Tetyana defended the role of the evidence leaders, describing them as independent legal professionals tasked with assisting the committee. The evidentiary overview was not a committee report but rather a summary of the evidence collected during the inquiry, he said. Tetyana added that the committee had not yet deliberated on the evidentiary overview and that a provisional report would be produced only after members had considered the evidence. The provisional report would then be provided to affected parties, who would be allowed to respond before a final report was adopted. Committee chairperson Soviet Lekganyane described Mchunu’s challenge as premature. Lekganyane said the committee had consistently maintained that affected parties would be allowed to respond once a provisional report had been completed.