Andrea Johnson testifies at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry. Gallo Images/Frennie Shivambu
CAPE TOWN - DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach said there's no excuse for misleading Parliament under oath.
Former IDAC head Andrea Johnson faces scrutiny after admitting that parts of her testimony before Parliament's SAPS ad hoc committee were incorrect.
Breytenbach adds that it could carry heavy consequences.
"There can be no excuse. Once you give evidence under oath, clearly you're expected to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, more particularly when you're the head of, or the investigating director of a body like IDAC.
“So, you know, everybody knows what the reason was for the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee, and to have witnesses who hold that kind of position and come to Parliament and mislead Parliament with evidence that is not correct, that's not only very disappointing, it's extremely serious and it probably will have serious consequences."
The Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC) said misleading Parliament is a criminal offence that cannot be taken lightly.
Former IDAC head Andrea Johnson faces calls for possible perjury charges.
She admitted that parts of her testimony before the committee were incorrect.
The National Prosecuting Authority is now considering the matter.
CASAC’s Lawson Naidoo said there was a specific statutory offence under the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament Act to mislead or give false testimony to Parliament.
“It appears that is what Andrea Johnson had done during her appearance before the Ad Hoc Committee some time ago, in stark contrast to the evidence that she has now given or that has now materialised at the Madlanga Commission.
“As we understand it, there is already a criminal investigation ongoing and we have been told that the NPA is considering that matter and considering whether to charge Advocate Johnson with perjury relating to her testimony.
“Of course, perjury is also a common law offence. The parameters are the same, that one must have disclosed false information with the intent to deceive and knowing or at least to reasonably have known that the information was false at that time. So those are the issues that the Prosecuting Authority will have to consider in making a decision whether or not to prosecute Andrea Johnson for perjury,” Naidoo said.