Members of Parliament (MPs) have said that there is some uncertainty regarding whether evidence leader Advocate Norman Arendse SC, would be included in the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliaments and Provincial Legislatures Act, 2004.
This comes after suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu’s chief of staff, Cedrick Nkabinde, is demanding an apology from Parliament’s Ad Hoc committee evidence leader for comments he made last Wednesday.
The committee is probing allegations of police corruption made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
In a letter to Arendse dated October 17, Nkabinde’s lawyers, Lawtons Africa, said the remarks were made on October 15, when suspended deputy police commissioner Lt-Gen Shadrack Sibiya appeared.
“During the course of these proceedings, and at around 7:16:14 and after the Chairperson had made a ruling that the evidence leader, Advocate Norman Arendse SC, (“Arendse SC”) must clarify certain issues that needed clarity, Arendse SC made reference to our client’s name,” the letter mentions.
“In response, Lieutenant General Sibiya confirmed that he knew Mr. Nkabinde and identified him as the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Police. Arendse SC, subsequent to asking Lieutenant General Sibiya whether he knew several people (mentioned in the same line with our client), then made a remark that ‘these are all people who are mentioned in the WhatsApps …they are all linked to the drug cartels operating in Gauteng’.”
The letter states that “these statements and insinuations, made in a public forum and broadcast to the wider public, are not true and they are a clear and defamatory implication that our client is involved in criminal activities, specifically in relation to so-called drug cartels and organised crime, operating in Gauteng”.
Nkabinde, according to the letter, is seeking for Arendse SC, to desist making remarks “associating or implying to associate our client with any so-called criminal syndicates and/or drug cartels operating in Gauteng”, and that he makes a full and “unequivocal public retraction of the defamatory statements made or implied”.
The Ad Hoc Committee spokesperson said that Arendse SC would be best placed for comment. He has been contacted for comment, but has yet to respond.
DA MP Ian Cameron said that he sees the matter as being one in which the Ethics Committee would have to weigh-in on as “that could be quite a hefty punishment”.
Cameron said he is unclear on how far the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliaments and Provincial Legislatures Act, 2004, would extend, and if it would include Arendse as the evidence leader.
“I think Nkabinde is, as the Afrikaans saying goes ‘soos ‘n kat op ‘n warm plaat’ (like a cat on a hot tin roof). He should just wait his turn, and then he can come to the Ad Hoc Committee and state his case.
“It’s the same with Sibiya; they all run around frantically. They all want to run to the first TV interview, and they make statements that they will later need to explain. I think Nkabinde made a mistake by first of all doing that so-called press conference that he tried to do a couple of weeks ago.
“That seriously damaged his credibility, and I think he should just come and state his case before the Ad Hoc Committee; he is going to have his day. Allow the other witnesses to state their case, and allow the evidence leader to do his job.”
Cameron said that the evidence leader’s job is to probe things and that he may ask questions that could be extremely uncomfortable.
“It could even insinuate certain things… but as long as it’s within the terms of reference of the Ad Hoc Committee. I don’t see how that is wrong.”
ANC’s Khusela Sangoni-Diko said that it is unfortunate that Nkabinde would choose this route, “which seems like a tactic to distract and intimidate the evidence leader”.
“Mr Nkabinde has been invited to the Ad Hoc Committee precisely to respond to any allegations levelled against him. We trust he will use that opportunity to present his version of the truth.”
