Confusion emerging from police inquiries benefits politicians, keeps public in the dark

While the various formal inquiries into claims of political interference and criminal infiltration in our police service have brought much heat, they have brought little light. Instead, the picture looks more muddled than ever before. This is deliberate. 

There is now a risk that it will be possible for President Cyril Ramaphosa to avoid taking action, thus allowing those involved in wrongdoing to remain in their positions.

When KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi first made his claims about the national management of the SAPS, the story seemed clear: Now-suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu was the bad guy because he illegally ordered the disbanding of the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT).

Now Mchunu has started to give his own evidence to Parliament’s ad hoc committee investigating the claims.

As our live blog from his testimony on Thursday explains, he says disbanding the PKTT was entirely rational, and based on other considerations.

Meanwhile, Ramaphosa has thrown another spanner in the works, with his surprise and sudden suspension of Inspector General of Intelligence Imtiaz Fazel on Wednesday night.

As News24 reported, Fazel “recommended disciplinary and criminal steps be taken against [National Police Commissioner Fannie] Masemola and the head of Crime Intelligence Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo over the use of R120-million in covert funds to procure properties”.

This would then suggest that both Masemola and Khumalo have important questions to answer. It might also indicate that Ramaphosa has picked a side, and his side includes Masemola.

Of course, it is impossible to know. And it seems likely that Ramaphosa himself will now have to answer questions about his conduct.

Certainly, the question of whether he wanted the PKTT shut down now has some urgency.

However, it seems unlikely that a clear picture will ever emerge. First, unlike the Zondo Commission, there is no single narrative emerging from one single inquiry.

Instead, there are two public inquiries (the Madlanga Commission and the Parliamentary ad hoc committee) and one secret proceeding (Parliament’s Intelligence Committee is also due to hold an inquiry. And these proceedings are held behind closed doors).

The parliamentary inquiry features politicians asking questions of those involved in the SAPS. And the real agendas behind their questions will have to be interrogated at every turn.

Considering Jacob Zuma has been easily the biggest political figure in KwaZulu-Natal for so long, it seems hard to believe MK MPs will not be furthering whatever his agenda may be.

Julius Malema clearly has a relationship with someone who is not a major figure in this now, but might soon emerge as one. Major General Feroz Khan is the head of counter and security intelligence for the SAPS. He attended the EFF’s gala dinner in 2023, before he was implicated in wrongdoing in a cocaine bust in 2021. He has now blamed Khumalo for the charges against him.

Meanwhile, while some ANC MPs, including Chief Whip Mdumiseni Ntuli, have contributed some riveting questioning, it is not entirely clear which way they will go. 

They may well have their own individual agendas, or be part of different factions in the ANC which could be divided on this. All of this means it is entirely possible for the public parliamentary process to dissolve into chaos. Also known as our usual politics.

This would normally mean that one would turn to the Madlanga Commission for clarity. After all, it is led by a former Constitutional Court judge, while the other commissioners are all highly regarded legal people.

However, as people like Brown Mogotsi prepare to testify, it is likely that the competing versions will become harder to differentiate between. Particularly as the parliamentary inquiry has now heard that Mkhwanazi wanted Mogotsi to be part of a meeting about the PKTT (which means a civilian would be part of a decision about a police unit).

Also, there is an important risk that, given that some of the evidence will either be heard behind closed doors or be given by people unknown to the general public, the narrative becomes completely unclear. It is likely, for example, that some of the most important evidence Madlanga hears will be heard either in secret or with the identity of the witness hidden.

This evidence might have the power to completely change the commission’s findings. There can also be a strange dynamic around this type of evidence.

It can be presumed that because some information is secret, or evidence is heard in camera, then it must be true. Secret evidence can be seen to have more power than normal evidence. 

The scope for this to be manipulated is huge. And this might result in an outcome that is not clear to the general public. 

At the same time the inquiry by Parliament’s Standing Committee on Intelligence does not appear to be making progress at this stage. But, if it does go ahead, and meets in secret, this would give MPs the opportunity to use this process for their own ends. 

That the ANC has more MPs than other parties on this committee could even give it the scope to come to completely different conclusions. This would provide a reason for Ramaphosa, or whoever, to ignore the findings of the other inquiries.

It should be remembered that the real power of the Zondo Commission did not just lie in its findings and recommendations, but also in the fact that millions of people saw and heard the testimony of those speaking for themselves. This meant that when the findings were published they had legitimacy.

And despite all of that, Ramaphosa has still not acted on many of them, although there has been public pressure for him to do so (this pressure was probably best expressed during last year’s elections, in which the ANC lost a significant share of the vote).

This is currently absent from the proceedings we are seeing now. Rather we are being presented with a jumble of competing narratives that contradict each other, spiced up with some information which is being kept secret.

The history of the SAPS in the democratic era shows that politicians will try to influence the police in any way they can. There is no reason to believe this has changed.

The confusing and contradictory pictures emerging from these inquiries will allow this to continue. DM