Pretoria – The Claassen board of inquiry into suspended police commissioner Riah Phiyega’s fitness for office kicked off in Pretoria on Tuesday with a lengthy debate over the calling of witnesses by the evidence leaders to testify before the commission.
A request by evidence leaders, led by advocate Ismail Jamie, to bring in witnesses sparked opposition from Phiyega’s representative, advocate William Mokhari.
Phiyega’s team argued that bringing in new witnesses was tantamount to broadening the terms of reference and scope of the inquiry and should not be allowed by board chairman, Judge Neels Claassen.
“The manner in which the evidence leaders have presented their argument to you (Judge Claassen) is that you must make your ruling in the abstract. That they are entitled to call witnesses. But it can’t be,” Mokhari argued.
“They must be able to say ‘we have the evidence of the following people and we are asking for a ruling from you whether we can adduce that evidence because there is an objection to that’. They are not doing that.”
Mokhari said the defence team should have been furnished with sworn statement of witnesses that they intended calling in the future. He said the defence wanted to see what evidence those witnesses would be going to present.
“We are not told of who (is it) they are going to call, who has made the statement under oath and what is the relevance of that evidence. I would like to do that myself because that is what this board has to consider when making its own ruling. We have only been given four statements. When the evidence talks of calling witnesses, we assume they are talking of calling only four people,” said Mokhari.
“They can’t tell us about other people today, which they have not told us about and have not given us statements.”
Mokhari stressed that the evidence leaders were attempting to swop Phiyega’s right to call witnesses.
“It is the national commissioner who is being accused of misconduct. She has the rights, derived from the principle of natural justice, to a fair trial, to adduce evidence, to be present here and to call whatever witness. Now the evidence leaders want to transpose the rights which are conferred on the national commissioner … that those rights also apply to them,” said Mokhari.
“They have made allegations and they must now prove those allegations. Whatever evidence they bring, it must be relevant to the terms of reference.”
After more than an hour of debate, Claassen said he would rule on the matter after a lunch break.
In September, President Jacob Zuma announced that he had set up the board of inquiry into Phiyega’s fitness to hold office.
“President Jacob Zuma has in terms of Sections 9(1) of the South Africa Police Service Act, 1995, established a Board of Inquiry into the allegations of misconduct by the National Commissioner of the South African Police Service, and/or her capacity to execute official duties efficiently,” the Presidency said in a statement at the time.
Judge Claasen chairs the three-member board. He is assisted by advocates Bernard Khuzwayo and Anusha Rawjee.
Phiyega’s actions on August 16, 2012, when 34 miners were killed during a violent strike at the Lonmin mines in the North West in what is believed to be the biggest loss of life in a single police operation in post-apartheid South Africa, was heavily criticised by a commission of inquiry led by retired Judge Ian Farlam.
In June, Zuma released the report of the Farlam Commission. It recommended the board of inquiry into Phiyega’s fitness to hold office after finding fault with the police’s “tactical” plan to deal with the striking miners.
The Farlam Commission also found the police had misled it about its plans on the day of the killings.
The terms of reference of the Claassen Inquiry include investigating whether Phiyega, acting with others in the SA Police Service leadership structures, “misled the Commission” by hiding the fact that they had authorised the “tactical option” during a management meeting on the day before the killings.
The Claassen Inquiry is also investigating whether Phiyega, while taking the decision to go the tactical route, could have foreseen the “tragic and catastrophic consequences which ensued”.
Phiyega’s testimony before the Farlam Commission would also come under scrutiny as the board would look into whether the evidence she presented during the inquiry “was in keeping with the office which she holds and the discharge of her duties commensurate therewith”.
African News Agency
* Use IOL’s Facebook and Twitter pages to comment on our stories. See links below.