Mary de Haas. Brown Mogotsi. Cedrick Nkabinde.
Can someone do a quick tutorial for this trio on the essential requirements for testifying at an official inquiry?
It should include the importance of evidence, facts and detail. And perhaps throw in some tips on how to remain stoic during a parliamentary “witch hunt”.
Perhaps also a segment that deals with the definition of evidence? And whether or not you can simply refuse to name your sources, yet still be taken seriously. There should also be a section on when, if ever, it’s okay to “thumbsuck” crucial dates and details (this one would be short).
The two concurrent hearings under way into alleged criminality, political interference and corruption in the criminal justice system have heard from an array of witnesses, most of whom have made startling claims.
But three have stood out so far for their astonishingly feeble testimony.
Nkabinde and De Haas have appeared before the parliamentary ad hoc committee, while Mogotsi has been squirming in the hot seat at the Madlanga Commission.
The job of those asking the questions in both these parallel hearings is to interrogate the claims being made and decide if they have merit.
Neither a commission of inquiry nor a parliamentary hearing has the same authority as a court of law. The function of a commission is to “determine facts and to advise the president through the making of recommendations”. Likewise, decisions made by ad hoc committees in South Africa’s parliament are generally not legally binding on outside parties in the same way as an Act of Parliament is.
So there is some flexibility in what the chairs of these hearings can choose to accept or reject from those summoned to appear before them. There is an element of feasibility and reason when it comes to testimony that would never be permitted in a court of law.
Nevertheless, these two processes hold immense power, responsibility and gravitas. They make recommendations that can potentially change the course of our country. Their findings will be widely quoted for many years to come. They should never be underestimated or disrespected.
This is what De Haas, Nkabinde and Mogotsi have done: De Haas, a respected researcher and academic, by failing to present any evidence and losing her composure; Nkabinde by being shockingly ill-prepared; and Mogotsi by peddling mabarebare (gossip) in a pathetic attempt to wriggle out of complicity.
In a country in which criminal syndicates have become endemic, the exposure of the key players in this nefarious industry — and the possible contribution senior government officials have made to enable them to flourish — is a task of immense consequence.
We must all take it seriously if we want any meaningful outcome.
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.