Courts & Legal
Why Parliament stopped a former SSA officer from testifying at the Mkhwanazi inquiry
A last-minute halt in Parliament
What was meant to be two days of testimony turned into a procedural standoff in Parliament this week, after former State Security Agency officer Xolile Mashukuca was told he could not speak without prior approval from the SSA.
Mashukuca had been scheduled to give oral evidence before the Ad Hoc Committee investigating allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. His appearance formed part of the committee’s public participation process, a phase often seen as critical for transparency and accountability.
Instead, proceedings were paused when it emerged that the SSA’s acting director-general had not granted Mashukuca permission to testify.
Why permission suddenly mattered
Committee chairperson Soviet Lekhanyane told members that the committee had received correspondence from Sylvia Lucas, chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. The letter raised concern that Mashukuca had bypassed legal requirements governing former intelligence officials.
Lekhanyane was clear that it was not Parliament’s role to warn witnesses about intelligence legislation. If a former official knows the law applies to them, he argued, compliance should happen before they arrive at Parliament’s doors.
The SSA has since formally written to Mashukuca, instructing him to apply for permission and demonstrate that his evidence falls within legal limits. Importantly, the agency has not barred him from appearing outright. It has simply insisted that the procedure be followed first.
Frustration spills into the chamber
The delay sparked heated exchanges among MPs. Patriotic Alliance MP Ashley Sauls questioned why other intelligence-linked witnesses had previously been allowed to testify, albeit with public disclaimers about what they could not disclose.
Lekhanyane responded that those witnesses were from SAPS Crime Intelligence, not the SSA, and therefore operated under different legislative constraints. He also pointed out that former SSA director-general Robert McBride had appeared before the committee in full compliance with the law, even refusing to disclose his current employment because legislation prohibited it.
An emotional moment
MK Party MP Sibonelo Nomvalo made an emotional plea, saying Mashukuca had been visibly distressed after spending two days waiting to testify. Nomvalo insisted the former officer had no intention of revealing classified information and accused the process of being unfair.
The concern tapped into wider political anxieties. Nomvalo suggested that fears over sensitive disclosures, including references to the Phala Phala saga, could be influencing the reluctance to hear Mashukuca’s testimony.
Despite support from Nomvalo and MK Party MP David Skosana, Lekhanyane stood firm. No matter how compelling the evidence, he said, it must come through lawful channels.
What happens next
Mashukuca has now agreed to submit a formal application to the SSA. Once that is done, the committee expects a response within a reasonable timeframe before deciding when to reschedule his appearance.
For many observers, the incident highlights a familiar tension in South African politics. On one side is the push for openness and public accountability. On the other hand, there is a legal framework that tightly regulates current and former intelligence officials, often frustrating parliamentary processes.
Mashukuca himself told the committee he was unaware that permission was required and maintained that his evidence did not stem from SSA operations. Until the agency responds, however, his voice remains temporarily sidelined in one of Parliament’s most closely watched inquiries.
Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter, TikT
For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com
Source: IOL
Featured Image: MSN
