Ramaphosa’s quest — to unriddle the KZN police enigma

The claims by KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi that Police Minister Senzo Mchunu has ties to Vusimusi Matlala, coming so soon after the Hawks’ arrest of an alleged SANDF hit squad, may force President Cyril Ramaphosa to act. 

It is clear that if he does not, there is a very real risk of people using state resources to settle their claims against one another. In a worst-case scenario, this could involve violence.

The seriousness of Mkhwanazi’s claims against Mchunu cannot be overstated. That said, it is likely there is a deeper and more complex context, and that people will have very different views about where the truth lies.

Many questions will now be asked by people with different agendas. Just the questions being asked will lead to various suspicions.

None of the examples that follow is based in fact, but they show how politicised the situation could become: Could this be to sabotage Mchunu’s rumoured campaign to lead the ANC? Is there a particular KZN dynamic that has been hidden until now? If that is the case, could former president Jacob Zuma really not be involved?

Again, there is no factual basis for any of those questions. But they have the potential to spark distrust among many people.

Removing those involved

Considering that this involves a provincial police commissioner and a police minister, it would be rational to assume that, as a starting point, Ramaphosa should temporarily remove all those involved from office.

Whatever mechanism is used, whether it be suspensions or special leave, it would make sense to expect that they would all be prevented from using their positions to influence the outcome of whatever investigation follows.

Allowing one or the other to stay would suggest a predetermined outcome; to do nothing would suggest he lacks the political power to act.

And yet, the balance of power in the ANC can appear so precarious that removing Mchunu, or someone else, could have other unintended consequences.

For the ANC to lose a leader from KZN who could perhaps campaign against MK could have its own consequences.

Mchunu’s response to this has also raised questions.

Why did he first give such a limp response to Mkhwanazi immediately after his press conference? If none of what was claimed is true, why was there no immediate full-throated denial, on the record, in front of microphones?

Wednesday’s statement, that he had actually met Brown Mogotsi after previously saying they were not associated, weakens his case further.

Bheki Cele’s link

Unfortunately for Ramaphosa, the problems do not end there.

News24’s report on Wednesday morning that Mchunu’s predecessor, Bheki Cele, used a penthouse owned by Matlala (in January this year, after he left the government) suggests Matlala’s alleged influence predates Mchunu. Matlala is allegedly connected to tender fraud and has been charged with attempting to murder his former partner.

While Cele says he is not friends with Matlala and only met him this year, that does not explain why he was staying in a property owned by someone he can only just have met.

The other problem Ramaphosa may have is who can be trusted to conduct these investigations.

Investigating a minister

On Wednesday, National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza announced she’d asked three Parliamentary committees to investigate the claims. While it may appear that this is a commendable step towards establishing the truth, the result is much more likely to be simple chaos.

Parliament has now explained that the parliamentary committees on police and on justice and constitutional development will hold their own investigation. This will be done jointly and in the open.

The Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence normally has its meetings behind closed doors. It will hold closed sessions.

It is now possible that the open investigation comes to one conclusion and produces a set of findings, while the closed investigation comes to a different conclusion with a different set of findings.

The result of that would be that Ramaphosa might have to decide between two differing findings. Or that Parliament has to vote on one or the other, with the result that it becomes hopelessly politicised.

This would mean that all Parliament’s investigations will amount to precisely nothing.

There seems to be no one available in the SAPS who can be trusted to do this work. Even the idea of another provincial commissioner investigating a sitting police minister would surely be hugely difficult.

And, because of the actions of Mchunu, there is still no boss of the Hawks.

That may leave few choices. But they could include the former head of the Hawks, Godfrey Lebeya, or perhaps a judge.

Either way, it is highly unlikely that such an investigation will reach a conclusion quickly. Every piece of evidence will have to be sifted carefully, and whoever does the investigation will have to be seen as legitimate. 

Ramaphosa may not be able to stop with the police. Because the SANDF is on fire, too.

Currently, its chief, General Rudzani Maphwanya, has not explained why a group of people under his command are implicated in the killing of Hawks detective Frans Mathipa.

Nor has he explained why the SANDF is paying for their legal defence.

Read more: Russian Doll revisited: Will the SANDF’s ‘dirty dozen’ expose the top brass?

Taken together, this suggests that we have security services that are no longer under the control of either the President or our democratic state.

This may be the real task for Ramaphosa. He has to ensure that our security services are under proper democratic control. 

In doing this, he also has to restore their legitimacy.

This might be impossible. The politics may be too complicated, too intertwined within the ANC, or even somehow just too dangerous.

If Ramaphosa is unable to resolve this, it will simply be even worse for his successor, who may, or may not, be as committed to the rule of law, as he claims to be. DM