Adhoc komitee SA Parlement – Mkhwanazi

The 11-member ad hoc committee set up to investigate allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, commenced with its hearings on 7 October 2025.
Daar is 11 lede van die Adhoc komitee van SA Parlement wat Luitenant-Generaal Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi se beweringe sal ondersoek wat op 7 Oktober 2025 in aanvang geneem het.

Ad Hoc Committee Investigates Allegations by Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi | 29 January 2026

The committee will focus on specific areas defined by its terms of reference, Arendse said. These are:

to investigate potential political interference.
to interrogate potentially corrupt relationships involving Police Minister Senzo Mchunu and controversial entrepreneurs Brown Mogotsi and Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala.
to examine possible procurement irregularities within the South African Police Service (SAPS) and in particular the R360-million SAPS healthcare contract with Medicare24 Tshwane and the role therein of Cat Matlala.
to assess prosecutorial conduct focusing on the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) and whether its officials unlawfully interfered with police investigations or exceeded their mandate.
to probe the alleged existence of an organised crime syndicate controlled by drug cartels and its alleged infiltration of key criminal justice system role players.
to look at the conduct of members of Parliament with regard to classified information and potential links to criminal syndicates.

https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/ad-hoc-committee-starts-hearings-into-mkhwanazis-allegations/

Beeldmateriaal

23 Februarie 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2dtkSqK2GY

An ad hoc committee is a temporary group of members of Parliament formed by the government to address a specific, immediate issue or project. Ad hoc committees dissolve once their task, investigation or recommendation is completed. Is it their job to accuse some of the voluntary witnesses or others without presenting the necessary evidence to the person being ‘accused’. If there is sufficient evidence, and it is placed on the table, it is part of the investigation. The job of the ad hoc committee is not there to accuse people without any evidence. Their job is to investigate the corruption and syndicates. Members of parliament who serve on adhoc committees earn large salaries to conduct their investigations. If there are volunteers who want to come forward to give evidence before the adhoc committee, who see and hear such types of allegations or accusations on TV that other witnesses are constantly being attacked or even falsely accused, it will stop the real testimonies in their tracks from appearing further before this committee of Parliament.

‘n Ad hoc-komitee is ‘n tydelike groep van lede van Parlement wat deur die regering gevorm word om ‘n spesifieke, onmiddellike kwessie of projek aan te spreek. Ad hoc-komitees ontbind sodra hul taak, ondersoek of aanbeveling voltooi is. Is dit hulle taak om van die vrywillige getuies of ander te beskuldig sonder om die nodige bewyse voor te lê aan die persoon wat ‘beskuldig’ word. Indien daar genoegsame bewyse is, en dit op die tafel geplaas is, is dit deel van die ondersoek. Die taak van die adhoc-komitee is nie daar om mense te beskuldig sonder enige bewyse nie. Hulle taak is om die korrupsie en sindikate te ondersoek. Lede van parlement wat in adhoc-komitees dien, verdien groot salarisse om hul ondersoeke te doen. Indien daar vrywilligers is wat na vore wil kom om getuienis voor die adhoc-komitee te dien, wat sulke tipe aantuigings of beskuldigings op TV sien en aanhoor dat ander getuies heeltyd aangeval of selfs vals beskuldig word, sal dit die werklike getuienisse in hul spore stop om verder voor hierdie komitee van Parlement te verskyn.

Adhoc-komitee

Explore the work of the Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate Allegations made by Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi

Composition

Alternate

Parliament
https://www.parliament.gov.za/committee-details/304

28 January 2026

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ABIm-jxWj0

The Committee discussed the matter of Mr Paul O’Sullivan. Members noted discomfort with Mr O’Sullivan’s remarks about the Committee which they felt were disrespectful. The Committee reaffirmed its previous decision that Mr O’Sullivan had to appear physically before the Committee. Mr O’Sullivan was described as a key witness. The Committee agreed that all legal mechanisms to secure Mr O’Sullivan’s appearance before the Committee had to be exhausted.

On the public submissions, the Committee approved the proposed list that had been presented. Members urged that the submissions take place in-person rather than virtually. A suggestion was made that should Mr O’Sullivan not be able to appear on the scheduled dates, that these dates could be used to conduct the public submissions.

Parliamentary Legal Services presented a response from the NPA about the lack of prosecution of Mr O’Sullivan for cases that it said were struck off the roll in 2017 due to inordinate delays. The Committee wanted the NPA to answer why the cases had not since been re-enrolled but it agreed that it first had to request the court record on the decision to strike the case off the roll.

Two days were set aside for public submissions. The PA and the MKP made proposals to include further witnesses. These were mostly accepted by the Committee except further written motivation was needed before a decision was made on some or reasons given why certain names were submitted by the public after the deadline. It was decided that the request in the United Africans Transformation submission needed more information about its allegations.

In this week, Mr R McBride and Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi would appear before the Committee.

On 26 January, there was space for oral submissions by civil society.

On 27 and 28 January, Mr P O’Sullivan, would appear before the Committee. Counsel had consulted virtually with Mr O’Sullivan. Mr O’Sullivan had indicated on 2 December 2025 that he would be unable to appear in-person. Mr B Mogotsi had been scheduled for consultation on Wednesday 28 January, after he had raised issue about not having legal representation and security concerns. Mr Mogotsi’s in-person appearance would be discussed in the consultation.

On 30 January there would be public submissions – this would be done virtually.

On 3 February, Lt Gen K Phahlane would return to the Committee.

On 4 February, Mr F Adams (NCC) and Ms Kohler Barnard were scheduled to appear.

The Committee would then conclude with Lt Gen Mkhwanazi to review and address allegations that have emerged during the course of the hearings thus far and for Lt Gen Mkhwanazi to respond to issues that were raised by other witnesses.

On 7 February there would be submission by evidence leaders on evidence presented to the Committee. He was unsure whether this meant that the legal team was expected to present a report on the evidence presented by witnesses. This would be highly unlikely. Counsel was still awaiting the transcripts and had only received transcripts for October 2025. Based on the draft programme, this would also require two team members taking off from hearings and focusing only on compiling the draft Committee report which needed 5-7 days to compile. The Committee would also need about five days to deliberate on this report and Adv Arendse requested clarity on this.

In terms of the format, duration and sworn statements, civil society organisations would not be required to submit sworn statements because submissions were based on research. It was recommended that individuals from the public submissions be engaged as public participants for the purpose of sharing lived experiences and not as witnesses whose evidence is formally led by Senior Counsel. Their participation is intended to contextualise the written submissions received by the Committee and to assist in identifying systematic issues relevant to the mandate of the enquiry. It was recommended that all such participants be required to submit sworn written statements in advance, limited to matters within the scope of the enquiry to strengthen the integrity if the process. It was recommended that these submissions be limited to a certain timeframe of 40 minutes to one hour.

The Chairperson noted the suggested dates for public participation sessions. He foresaw no issue with Friday 30 January and Friday 6 February. He noted the recommendation that the meetings be virtual. This would be integrated into the Committee’s timetable. There was no schedule clash between the proposed dates and the timetable presented by Senior Counsel.

The Chairperson referred to the report presented by the Senior Counsel on Mr O’Sullivan. Mr O’Sullivan had requested to appear virtually. He felt that Mr O’Sullivan had insulted Parliament by calling it a ‘criminal Parliament’ and had made serious allegations and casted aspersions on members of Parliament (MPs) and members of the Committee and had accused members of criminal conspiracies to take his life. Mr O’Sullivan had called members ‘criminals’ – this could not be ignored. Mr O’Sullivan had stated that even if he appeared virtually before the Committee, he would not recognise members of the MKP, EFF, and Action SA. He felt it was important to highlight this before members began their discussion.

The Chairperson suggested that members take the discussion point-by-point. The timetable would be discussed first, followed by the proposal of public participation by civil society and individuals. He noted that there may be an issue with public participation on Monday 26 January, as this was generally a travelling day or used for political party activities. The next matter for discussion would be the report on Mr O’Sullivan.

Mr Ntuli noted that the Mr B Mogotsi would appear before the Committee on the 29^th and 30^th of January. On the 30^th of January, there had been a suggestion of another item. Was the proposal that the Committee see Mr Mogotsi for one day as opposed to two days? If this was the case, the ANC did not have an issue with this. He made the same suggestion as the one about Julius Mkhwanazi, that the Committee start early and could run until late into the evening. The 30^th of January had been proposed as a public participation session. The ANC did not have an objection to Mr Mogotsi appearing for two days either, if that was the case.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee had previously made a decision to subpoena Mr O’Sullivan. However, he felt it was important to raise Mr O’Sullivan’s attitude toward the Committee and Parliament to the Committee’s attention. He felt that members should be given the opportunity to comment on the attitude of Mr O’Sullivan.

Mr Ntuli said that when reading the emails received from Mr O’Sullivan that he did not want to engage with the EFF, MKP and Action SA, it was clear that the Committee was dealing with an individual who was treating Parliament with serious contempt. The ANC did not believe that a private citizen should be allowed to undermine Parliament to this extent. The ANC was convinced that the position adopted earlier by the Committee shall be sustained – Mr O’Sullivan should be called to appear physically before the Committee to explain his role in the security environment of the South African Police Service (SAPS). The ANC would not accept any excuse which Mr O’Sullivan had raised in his emails about his security and people organising to murder him. The ANC was of the view that the Committee position on the matter had to be sustained and that Mr O’Sullivan had to appear before the Committee.

Mr Ntuli said that the Committee’s term of office would end on the 20^th of February. He was hopeful that the Committee would meet this deadline. It was important that the Committee meet this deadline. In a situation where the Committee reached this date and Mr O’Sullivan had not returned from overseas, the Committee would have to decide and take the Report to Parliament. The Report would be helpful for Parliament and Portfolio Committee’s to discharge its responsibilities on the matters that were investigated. The Committee may have to request Parliament to allow the Committee to make a supplementary submission at a later stage, when the Committee has succeeded in having Mr O’Sullivan appear before the Committee. It was critical that Mr O’Sullivan appear before the Committee as he had been a central player and based on what the Committee had heard, been very negative in the work of SAPS. It would be a traverse of justice if the Committee did not succeed to have Mr O’Sullivan appear before the Committee. Parliament would have to deliberate on this matter and come to an agreement. It could not be that Mr O’Sullivan could undermine Parliament to the extent that he has.

Mr Ntuli confirmed that this was his proposal. The Committee should not allow a situation where it was unable to conclude and submit its report before or by the 20^th of February. The Committee should make a firm proposal to Parliament and give the evidence as it appeared before the Committee and request an opportunity to report back after Mr O’Sullivan appeared before the Committee. Mr O’Sullivan should not be allowed to continuously extend the Committee’s work. Mr X Nqola (ANC) said that the application by Mr O’Sullivan to appear virtually should be declined with immediate effect.

He felt that the Senior Counsel did not appear to be well and professional when members of the Committee had confrontations with the Senior Counsel. Sometimes this was inevitable, especially when members felt that they needed to help the process. This could be avoided. What happened previously in terms of arguing about what could be probed and said by the witness could have been avoided if the consultation between the witness and the Senior Counsel was effective and accurate. His understanding was that part of what must be done by the Senior Counsel during consultations was to guide witnesses on the relevant content that could be accommodated in the statement, guided by the terms of reference. He did not understand when a witness came to the Committee with a 168 pages and the majority of its content was peripheral. Members were then triggered to intervene during the course of the testimony upon realizing that some of the evidence was irrelevant. Unfortunately, there could be no intervention during the appearance because the statement has already been written and the witness was under oath. At this point members had also already read the statement. Once a statement was prepared and shared with the Committee prior to interviewing the witness, members would interrogate the witness based on what was written in the statement. What was written in the statement could not be ignored as it had been written and signed under oath. Could the legal team try and improve matters in this regard. This would help address the proposal of the ANC in terms of shortening Mr Mkhwanazi’s appearance to one day. If the legal team stuck to the terms of reference and did not expand the statement beyond what was necessary, the length of the statement may be shorter as it would not contain irrelevant information.

Mr D Skosana (MKP) said that the MKP would never agree to what Mr O’Sullivan wanted members to do. There were laws that could ensure that Mr O’Sullivan appeared before the Committee, even if this happened after the 20^th of February. If Mr O’Sullivan did not appear it would undermine the Committee.

On Mr O’Sullivan, the DA had no issue with members wanting Mr O’Sullivan to appear in person before the Committee. The Committee had to be careful if the Committee forced Mr O’Sullivan to appear physically and he did get assassinated, the Committee would have to deal with the fallout.

On Mr O’Sullivan, the EFF urged that he be summoned to the Committee. The process to get Mr O’Sullivan to appear before the Committee should start immediately. This should not be left until the last minute. How would the supplementary report work – could this be explained to members? In his letter, Mr O’Sullivan stated that he had planned a holiday before the Committee was constituted and that he indicated this in the beginning. Coincidentally Mr O’Sullivan’s holiday ended after the Committee was due to submit its report.

Ms Mathys reiterated that Mr O’Sullivan had to be summoned to the Committee and that the summons process had to be started immediately. The Committee did not need to continuously engage with Mr O’Sullivan and continue to invite him – he had to be summoned. The Committee had tolerated Mr O’Sullivan’s nonsense for too long. Enough was enough. Mr O’Sullivan had to be summoned.

Mr A Sauls (PA) referred to the proposed programme saying PA agreed to it, including the proposal that Mr J Mkhwanazi only be allotted one day.

On the matter of Mr O’Sullivan, he felt that it was important for the Committee to speak as one on this issue. Mr O’Sullivan had to understand that when he spoke of one member, he speaks of all of them. There was no separation. His strategy to try and nullify the legal weight of the Committee’s proceedings by making it seem as if there are sides rather than a non-partisan approach of all members seeking to find the truth had to be squashed. This perception was very dangerous. The Committee had to maintain the disposition that all members sought to find the truth without having chosen sides. The PA stood with the position that Mr O’Sullivan had to appear before the Committee physically. Members should not be emotional or appear to be emotional – members had to be impartial.

Ms D James (Action SA) indicated that Action SA supported the proposal for the upcoming week. Action SA also supported the proposal that only one day be allocated for Mr J Mkhwanazi – this could be done in one day if the Committee started earlier.

On Mr O’Sullivan, the Committee’s stance has been clear. She was taken aback that the process to subpoena Mr O’Sullivan to Parliament had not been started. This process should have been started already as the Committee had already agreed that Mr O’Sullivan should appear physically before the Committee.

Ms James referred to the appearance of Lt Gen Mkhwanazi. When Lt Gen Mkhwanazi appeared she wanted to ask what the actual intention and actual reason was. What was it the Committee wanted to hear from Lt Gen Mkhwanazi at the end of the process? Would the Committee probe certain things where clarity was needed? Or was the Committee simply calling Lt Gen Mkhwanazi back so that he was able to give his opinion and his finding on the witness statements and all of the witnesses who had appeared before the Committee. What would happen if Lt Gen Mkhwanazi was called back to the Committee and during this appearance more information was brought to light – where would this leave the Committee? What was the Committee’s objective and desired outcome in calling Lt Gen Mkhwanazi back to the Committee?

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee was in agreement that Lt Gen Mkhwanazi be called back to appear before the Committee. This was not a new decision – members had decided on this a while ago. He was hopeful that Ms James’ questions would be answered by the time Lt Gen Mkhwanazi reappeared before the Committee. The Committee should agree on how it wanted to approach Lt Gen Mkhwanazi’s final appearance before the Committee. The legal team could help to formulate this approach.

On Mr O’Sullivan, the Committee was clear that he should appear in-person before the Committee. Further, the Committee rejected any tendency that sought to treat the Committee as separate political parties as opposed to a collective of Parliament. There was no way that a witness could say that he would not recognise members from particular parties. This was contempt of Parliament and its processes.

Adv Andile Tetyana, Parliamentary Legal Services, said that there had been correspondence addressed from the Committee on the prosecution of cases or lack thereof relating to Mr O’Sullivan. A letter dated 17 December 2025 was sent to the Committee. A case was opened in Pretoria on 12 January 2017 and related to charges of fraud, impersonating a member of the Independent Police Investigation Directorate (IPID) and two counts of extortion. This case was struck off the roll in terms of Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act. This section empowered courts to investigate and address unreasonable delays in criminal proceedings. This was aimed at protecting fair trial rights by considering factors like duration and reasons for the delay, blame for the delay, impact on the personal circumstances of the accused, prejudice, effect on the administration of justice, victims and the public. If delays are unreasonable, courts could issue orders to eliminate them, though this does not automatically grant a permanent stay of prosecution. The purpose of this was to ensure that criminal trials proceed expeditiously and fairly, preventing indefinite delays that undermined justice and cause prejudice.

In this instance, the question was why this matter has not been re-enrolled. The case dated back to 2017 and the decision to strike it off the roll in terms of Section 342A was issued on 8 November 2017. The prosecutors who were directly involved in the prosecution of the matter should be called before the Committee to explain why nine years had lapsed without the matter being re-enrolled.

The Chairperson requested clarification on the recommendation made to the Committee.

Adv Tetyana clarified that the Committee should call forward the prosecutors who were directly involved in the matter to explain why nine years had elapsed without the matter had not been re-enrolled. The basis upon which the matter was struck off the roll was due to delays in terms of Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Mr Nomvalo requested clarity on the reasons why the case was struck off the roll. Adv Tetyana had referred to delays. What was meant by this?

Adv Tetyana stated that every time the matter was to be adjudicated by the courts, the NPA would request a postponement. It had been delays on the part of the NPA.

Adv Tetyana said that a two-page letter had been received along with a copy of the docket. Based on the docket and the letter received, it could be asserted that there was no permanent stay of prosecution on the matter. After the matter was struck off, the NPA, on its own, took a decision to hold over the decision to prosecute until the matter against Lt Gen Phahlane was finalised. When looking at the charges independently, the charges related to fraud, impersonating an IPID official, extortion, etc, and the decision by the NPA to hold over the decision to prosecute until the matter against Lt Gen Phahlane was finalised had to be explained by the NPA. He reiterated that based on the correspondence and information received there was no permanent stay of prosecution. Paragraph 7 stated that the case was not withdrawn but rather struck off the roll by the magistrate after an inquiry of Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The last paragraph said that after the matter was struck off the roll, a decision was made to hold over the decision to prosecute until the matter against Lt Gen Phahlane was finalised.

Adv Breytenbach said that this was not helpful. The prosecution was in such disarray that a matter was struck off in terms of Section 342A – in 26 years of prosecuting she had never had a matter struck off once in terms of Section 342A. If the prosecution was in such disarray that the matter was struck off, she was not prepared to rely upon the judgement of the prosecutor about why the matter was held over and not withdrawn. She reiterated her question on what the order was. The only place this would be found, with any certainty, was on the court documents. The Committee needed to get a transcript of the proceedings. It was not difficult to get the transcript – an application had to be made to the relevant Court Registrar.

Mr Skosana emphasised that it was worse that Mr O’Sullivan had mentioned that he would not participate with MKP members. This was a cause for concern. Mr O’Sullivan could not dictate who he wanted to appear before.

Mr Sauls received an email from a Ms ‘Paulina Tebogo Ramajua’, supported by a witness Ms ‘Theresa Raporto’, a journalist with 23-years experience and the producer of reality show Izangoma Zodumo. In 2020, Paulina’s husband was murdered along with five others who were a part of the cast of the reality show. The alleged accused in the cases were a Mogotso ‘Gogo Maweni’ Mofokeng and her now husband. Since 2020, cases had been opened and both Paulina and Theresa had been placed under witness protection and were both still in hiding. There has been no progress on the cases. Periodically, they have both escalated the matter from local police right up to the provincial SAPS office in Gauteng and senior officials would commit to dealing with the problem but nothing has happened for five years. Paulina and Theresa believe that there was corruption involved and allege that the police were being paid to cover it up. Paulina and Theresa have evidence to this effect and requested that the Committee hear their testimony in this regard so that they may show the alleged cover-up by SAPS Gauteng.

Mr Sauls received an email from Sergeant Samkeliso Mlotshwa. The email stated that he was mentioned in the testimony of Mr V ‘Cat’ Matlala. The email read, “I can confirm that we have opened cases against the Hawks Kwa-Zulu Natal team and General Mkhwanazi was present on 9 December 2024 in an unknown farm in Durban when we were assaulted. He even participated in the assault.” Mr Sauls emphasised that this was an allegation. The email continued, “He said to me I should have committed a suicide because here in KZN he is going to talk to the prosecutors to make me trial for 18 months.” The email stated that Mr Samkeliso received a call in April 2025 from co-accused telling him that there was an offer of R5 million and a police rank Captain to withdraw the cases. Mr Sauls asked where the offer came from and it was indicated that the offer came from ‘Cat’ Matlala sent by General Mkhwanazi. The email stated that Mr Samkeliso had declined the offer. The email continued to talk about his house that was burned down. The email stated that General Mkhwanazi ‘lied on TV that my house was burned down before they came, which was not true. They broke into my house whilst I was not there and later burned my house down. The following day they went to my neighbour’s shop to destroy the camera monitors. I would like to come to the Committee to put my story.” The email indicated that Mr Samkeliso had an affidavit and supporting documents of cases opened. There was a testimony by one of the witnesses to this effect. Mr Sauls indicated that he had all the details, the email and the supporting documents.

Ms Sangoni reminded the Chairperson of a request made during the hearings that the SAPS generals had made a number of sweeping allegations against members of the judiciary. The Committee had requested that they provide a list of the members of the judiciary against whom allegations were laid. She was aware that of the role of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in so far as it related to the Committee’s terms of reference. If the allegations were being made the members of the judiciary had to be named – there could not be blanket statements against the judiciary. SAPS had to provide the names so that the Committee could probe the matter. She urged that once these names were received that they be given hearings.

The Committee agreed that Lt Gen Mkhwanazi would be the primary witness. After Lt Gen Mkhwanazi made his statement, the Committee met and made submissions of names as potential witnesses. The reason why certain names were not included was because no witness had mentioned the particular individuals. The two witnesses proposed by MKP in the meeting were based on allegations coming from elsewhere, not statements made by witnesses in Committee hearings. It had to be explained why these proposed witnesses did not make submissions when the public was allowed to make submissions. The matter raised by Mr Sauls should not be treated differently than the matter raised by Mr Skosana. The matters had to be treated consistently.

Mr Skosana said that the parties had all submitted names to be considered. Perhaps he had missed the decisions where it was indicated that only names implicated by Lt Gen Mkhwanazi and other witnesses would be called to appear. The issue of judges being accused of corruption and capture was not a new issue and had to be probed by the Committee. Unless the view was that because the particular individuals were not mentioned by any witnesses they should not be called. On the deadline issue, members had received emails from many individuals and were told to make submissions to the Committee – some sent them after the deadline, while others indicated that they had not been accepted or did not receive a response. Even if names were not mentioned by witnesses, the nature of the matter meant that many people sent information and names to members as the hearings proceeded. He was not aware that only names which had been mentioned could be called. The MKP would submit the written report on the names proposed in the meeting for the Committee to consider.

The Chairperson said that he had a meeting with the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence Chairperson on the previous Tuesday on to discuss the matters raised by the Committee about the appearance of the former Inspector-General of Intelligence (IGI) Mr Imtiaz Fazel and the availability of classified intelligence information. In the discussion the JSCI Chairperson said that there were matters that the Speaker of Parliament had referred to the JSCI which emanated from some of the allegations made by Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. The JSCI Chairperson stated that there was a procedure that had to be followed if any person who was not a member of the JSCI had to have access to information that was intelligence-related or any classified information. The JSCI Chairperson and himself had come to an agreement that the JSCI would write to the Committee and outline the procedure that had to be satisfied if the Committee was to request access to information that was believed to be helpful. Following this meeting, the JSCI Chairperson wrote to the Committee to outline the procedure when handling intelligence information. There had been a previous meeting with the JSCI Chairperson on similar matters. The letter had been circulated to members.

19 January 2026

https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/42281/

MORE INFORMATION ABOUT
GEN MKHWANAZI’S ALLEGATIONS –
DOCUMENTS TO READ

https://www.parliament.gov.za/ad-hoc-committee-gen-mkhwanazis-allegations

DOCUMENTS

Terms of Reference (TOR) in Respect of the Ad Hoc Committee Enquiry Established to Investigate Wide-Ranging Allegations on Security Matters Made by Kwazulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi
Joint report of the Portfolio Committees on Police and Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on wide ranging allegations made by the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Police Commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, regarding security matters, dated 22 July 2025
Composition of the Committee
Order Paper (National Assembly) of 23 July 2025

WITNESS STATEMENTS

Witness Statement – Mr Brown Mogotsi
Witness Statement – Commissioner Julius Doctor Mkhwanazi Statement and Annexures
Witness Statement – Mr Robert McBride Statement and Annexures
Witness Statement – Lt Gen Dumisani Khumalo
Witness Statement – Mr Vusimuzi Cat Matlala
Witness Statement of Lt Gen Puleng Dimpane
Witness Statement – Lt Gen Dr Molefe Fani
Annexure Index Bundle – Lt Gen Dr Molefe Fani
Witness Statement of Ms Mary De Haas
Supplementary Statement of Mr Cedric Nkabinde
Witness Statement Adv Shamila Batohi
Witness Statement Adv Andrea Johnson
Witness Statement Prof Firoz Cachalia
Witness Statement of Boshielo
Witness Statement Mr Cassel Mathale
Witness Statement Mr Bheki Cele
Witness Statement Mr Senzo Mchunu
Witness Statement Lt Gen Shadrack Sibiya
Witness Statement Gen Fannie Masemola
Annexure bundle to witness statement of Lt-Gen Mkhwanazi
Witness Statement Lt General Mkhwanazi 10072025

MEDIA STATEMENTS

COMMITTEE MEETING VIDEOS

COMMITTEE NOTICE

Description	Closing Date	Details
Have Your Say: The Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate Allegations of LT Gen Mkhwanazi Invitation for Public Submissions	9:17am on 17 Oct 2025	English

BACKG ROUND INFORMATION – AGTERGRONDSINLIGTING

Generaal Mkhwanazi 2011

Generaal Mkhwanazi

Contact Admin:
Admin kan gekontak word by
volksvryheid9@gmail.com

Adhoc komitee SA Parlement – Mkhwanazi

Composition

Alternate

DOCUMENTS

WITNESS STATEMENTS

MEDIA STATEMENTS

COMMITTEE MEETING VIDEOS

COMMITTEE NOTICE

Gepubliseer deur volksvryheid

Lewer kommentaar

Composition

Alternate

DOCUMENTS

WITNESS STATEMENTS

MEDIA STATEMENTS

COMMITTEE MEETING VIDEOS

COMMITTEE NOTICE

Deel met die wêreld:

Gepubliseer deur volksvryheid

Lewer kommentaar