By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The lawyers for embattled SAPS crime intelligence boss Feroz Khan have withdrawn his application for parts of his testimony to be heard in camera at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry at the Bridgette Mabandla Justice College in Tshwane.
Khan’s lawyers, Advocates Zubair Khan and Mohammed Valley, appeared before the commission on Wednesday in his absence.
Khan was scheduled to begin his testimony on Wednesday, but was involved in a shooting incident on Sunday night.
His lawyers have told the commission that he is unconscious in hospital and is in a critical condition.
They told the commissioners, who have poked holes in their submissions, that they would need a supplementary affidavit from Khan, but could only get it when he is conscious.
The commission’s evidence leaders opposed the application, arguing that it lacked sufficient detail and justification.
They advised Khan’s lawyers to submit a clearer and more comprehensive application setting out the basis for the request.
Khan’s legal team agreed, indicating that they may also seek input from the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) before proceeding.
Commission chair Justice Mbuyiseni Madlanga went on to admonish lawyers over comments he made during a media interview.
Madlanga cautioned the lawyers against making allegations that could undermine the integrity of the commission.
“If you are ever to make media briefings again, be careful of what you say and don’t say anything that may tend to impugn the integrity of this commission. You should be very careful about that,” Madlanga said.
“I note what you say, “Advocate Khan responded.
Following the warning, Advocate Khan clarified that he was not suggesting his shooting resulted from information leaked by the commission.
Madlanga also rejected claims by Khan’s legal team that the commission had instructed officials to visit the hospital where he is being treated.
The allegations stem from a statement filed by Khan’s attorneys, in which they speculated that officials may have been sent to verify whether Khan had indeed been shot or to assess the severity of his condition.
Madlanga described the allegations as serious, stressing that any such directive could only have come from him personally and confirming that he had issued no such instruction.
He added that neither senior commission officials nor any of the commission’s nine evidence leaders were aware of any such directive.
Meanwhile several parties on Wednesday dismissed MK Party MP Vusi Shongwe’s testimony at the Madlanga Commission over the non-appearance of Khan before the Ad Hoc Committee.
Shongwe told the Madlanga Commission on Tuesday that it was difficult to get Khan to testify before the committee because of resistance from the members of the committee and singled out EFF leader Julius Malema.
“The only thing is that on that day, Malema was the most vocal in not getting General Khan to come there,” he said.
EFF MP Leigh-Ann Mathys raised the matter when the Ad Hoc Committee met to deliberate on its preliminary report.
Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Glynnis Breytenbach clarified that decisions were taken by the committee.
“There is no individual decision taken here,” she said.
Breytenbach also said witnesses that appeared before the committee had complained to her that their evidence was discussed at the Madlanga Commission without an opportunity to defend themselves despite the committee promising protection.
ANC MP Khusela Sangoni-Diko said the committee needed to agree on the treatment of revelations that came from the commission subsequent to the completion of its work.
“We may not have a specific position, but we need to agree on what we do and how we respond,” she said before supporting that aggrieved witnesses should write to the committee following Shongwe’s testimony before the Madlanga Commission.
Committee Chairperson Soviet Lekganyane said they took ownership of the decisions taken by the committee.
“As chair, I can assure you that in all meetings I presided over, I was at my highest level of sobriety and that is why I kept my notebook and took notes.”
“There is not any other decision that has been taken in our meetings that we were induced to, that we were under duress, that we would have been bribed to arrive at such a decision,” he said.