What the Ad-Hoc Committee Really Found – Parliament’ Ad-hoc Committee Explained
Parliament’s Ad-hoc Committee was established to interrogate serious allegations of political interference, corruption and internal dysfunction within South Africa’s
policing and criminal justice institutions. Its mandate was not to determine guilt, but to hear testimony, place evidence on record and assess whether further scrutiny would be required.
As the Committee adjourns for the year, its work remains incomplete. No findings or recommendations have yet been made. However, the hearings have already surfaced significant questions about how power is exercised within the South African Police Service and how effectively oversight mechanisms are functioning.
At the heart of the inquiry was a fundamental question; whether the South African Police Service operates independently of political influence, or whether decision-making at the highest levels has been compromised.
One of the most consequential witnesses was Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, former acting National Police Commissioner. His testimony alleged sustained political interference in policing operations and challenged the rationale behind attempts to disband the Political Killings Task Team. Mkhwanazi argued that the unit was operationally effective, constitutionally justified and critical to addressing politically motivated violence, particularly in KwaZulu-Natal.
Testimony from Deputy National Police Commissioner Shadrack Sibiya, and former Police Minister Bheki Cele featured prominently in testimony, with witnesses raising questions about the boundaries between ministerial oversight and operational control. National Police Commissioner Fannie Masemola’s evidence highlighted tensions between political oversight and operational independence, while testimony related to Crime Intelligence pointed to internal dysfunction within SAPS leadership structures, contested authority and allegations of corruption.
The Committee also heard evidence touching on Crime Intelligence, allegations of internal corruption, and the experiences of individuals who described themselves as whistleblowers. Figures associated with oversight and investigative bodies, including the National Prosecuting Authority, Shamila Batohi, IDAC head Advocate Andrea Johnson, were drawn into the discussion as Parliament sought to understand whether existing accountability mechanisms were sufficient.
In addition, testimony from alleged organised crime figures like Vusimuzi “Cat Matlala and “Businessman” Brown Mogotsi, introduced further complexity, forcing MPs to confront claims that criminal networks may have penetrated senior law-enforcement structures; by probing their relationship and proximity to Police Minister Senzo Mchunu [who is currently on special leave]. While such allegations remain untested, their inclusion underscored the seriousness of the issues being examined.
The evidence revealed four dominant themes: credible allegations of political interference, deep dysfunction within Crime Intelligence, weaknesses in existing oversight mechanisms and a hostile environment for whistleblowers.
The Committee’s work fed directly into broader accountability processes, including the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry. What the hearings have done, at minimum, is place names, allegations and institutional fault lines on the parliamentary record. Whether these issues lead to formal findings, referrals or reforms will depend on what happens when the Committee reconvenes in 2026.
For South Africans, the implications are far-reaching. Policing that is subject to political pressure undermines investigations into corruption and organised crime. Weak oversight erodes public trust. And compromised intelligence structures threaten the rule of law itself.
This episode of SA Explained offers an interim wrap-up of proceeding this year. It exists to provide clarity; tracing who said what, why the process matters, and what the Ad-hoc Committee’s future findings will reveal and mean about accountability in South Africa’s democracy.