Members of parliament’s ad hoc committee were not impressed with the testimony delivered by Dr Mary de Haas, with MPs labelling her evidence as “hearsay and gossip”.
The committee is investigating allegations of corruption and political interference in the criminal justice system. Human rights activist and violence monitor De Haas is implicated in the investigation for allegedly influencing the directive of suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu to disband the political killings task team (PKTT). She had sent a letter requesting the task team’s dissolution.
In her testimony on Tuesday, De Haas told the committee about information she had received from police officers and sources she declined to reveal. The information concerned the work of the PKTT, which she claimed abused suspects and fabricated statements.
When MPs pressed her to disclose the names of her sources, she refused, citing ethical reasons.
The refusal to name sources immediately drew sharp criticism from MPs.
MK Party MP Sibonelo Nomvalo said De Haas’s denial made it appear as though the committee was engaging in “gossiping”.
If someone is telling me something and I can verify it with someone else, as with what’s in some of the letters, I am leaving it to someone else to interrogate further. That’s why I report to the police and parliament. I’m asking them to take what I am giving them to verify it
— Mary de Haas, human rights activist and violence monitor
“She must refrain from giving us nameless information because there’s nothing we can do about it. She must either give us names or set aside testimony without names,” Nomvalo said.
Other MPs voiced concerns that her evidence relied too heavily on secondary sources, suggesting it would be unhelpful to the committee’s final findings.
MK Party MP David Skosana directly challenged the credibility of her allegations, saying: “How did you come to a conclusion that the information they gave you [is true]? What you are telling us are only allegations. Why should the committee rely on hearsay? If you can’t confirm them yourself, why are you presenting them as evidence in parliament?
“The statement you gave to us is hearsay, unverified allegations, opinions, narratives from accused persons, leaked intelligence and reconstruction based on anonymous sources.”
Nomvalo said: “The credibility of the information you’re giving doesn’t rely on you because you’re saying, ‘I was told’. Had those people who told you written statements under oath, it would be different.”
ANC MP Ndumiseni Ntuli said the committee cannot rely on unverified allegations.
In her defence, De Haas maintained her evidence was not hearsay as it was based on reports from lawyers, victims and community members. However, she conceded she could not personally confirm any of the allegations she made.
She explained her purpose in presenting the information.
“If someone is telling me something and I can verify it with someone else, as with what’s in some of the letters, I am leaving it to someone else to interrogate further. That’s why I report to the police and parliament. I’m asking them to take what I am giving them to verify it.”
She argued that other witnesses, such as KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi and crime intelligence boss Lt-Gen Dumisani Khumalo, were not required to provide proof for every part of their testimony.
She said: “May I ask if you have asked Mkhwanazi or Khumalo for verification of everything they’ve said? I am reporting what I believe is true from different sources about the PKTT. If you say it’s hearsay, that’s your opinion. To me it’s not, to me it’s empirical factual information.”
TimesLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.