EFF and MK Party Demand Original Statement from General Mkhwanazi as Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee Faces Tensions

Cape town — The Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee investigating allegations involving Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi descended into heated exchanges on Monday, as members from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party challenged the legality and validity of the documents presented before them.

At the centre of the dispute is the use of a “supplementary statement” allegedly drawn from submissions made by General Mkhwanazi to the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry. Members of both parties insist that Parliament’s committee cannot rely on a document originating from an executive-appointed commission, arguing that such a move undermines the doctrine of separation of powers.

EFF and MK Party Question Legal Basis of Proceedings

EFF leader Julius Malema strongly objected to the proceedings, saying there was no formal statement submitted by General Mkhwanazi to the Ad Hoc Committee itself.

“I don’t understand on which basis you want General Mkhwanazi to take an oath,” Malema said. “Before us, there is no statement of General Mkhwanazi — only one to the Madlanga Commission. We are not a junior committee of that commission. It is unconstitutional and improper to proceed without an original statement directed to Parliament.”

Malema argued that a supplementary affidavit can only exist to supplement an original, which in this case, does not exist before the committee. He added that for parliamentary record-keeping, Mkhwanazi’s statement must be properly addressed to the committee to be archived as part of Parliament’s official documentation.

“When future generations search the archives for General Mkhwanazi’s statement to Parliament, they will find nothing,” Malema warned, blaming the committee’s legal team for what he called a procedural failure.

MK Party Members Echo Concerns

Members of the MK Party shared Malema’s frustrations, accusing the committee’s legal advisers of misleading Parliament by depending on a statement made to the Madlanga Commission.

One MK Party representative stated:

“We debated the role of Parliament before this committee was established. Today, we are being misled by the technical team. If you say we must rely on the statement of the Madlanga Commission, you are subverting the constitutional responsibility of Parliament.”

The member further cautioned against what he termed a “copy-and-paste” approach, arguing that the Ad Hoc Committee is an independent body created by Parliament — not an extension of the executive branch.

“Madlanga is a decision of the executive, not of Parliament. We are initiating our own process here. We cannot accept this document as a supplementary statement — it must be an original statement by Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi,” he said.

Committee’s Integrity and Constitutional Tensions

The standoff reflects growing institutional tension between Parliament and commissions of inquiry appointed by the executive. Members warned that accepting documents sourced from such commissions would erode Parliament’s authority and set a dangerous precedent for future investigations.

“If we start this copy-and-paste approach, tomorrow we will be told we can’t investigate matters already handled by commissions,” said one MK member. “We must assert Parliament’s independence.”

The debate underscores the constitutional sensitivities surrounding the separation of powers, especially when oversight bodies operate in parallel.

What Happens Next

The Ad Hoc Committee is expected to seek clarity on procedural rules before proceeding with testimony from Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi. Both the EFF and MK Party have called for a fresh, original statement addressed directly to Parliament, warning that failure to follow due process could invalidate the committee’s work.

For now, the political temperature remains high as lawmakers grapple with ensuring transparency and upholding constitutional principles in one of Parliament’s most scrutinized investigations.