Chaos Erupts in Parliamentary Inquiry as MPs Clash Over Summoning Judges

A parliamentary committee investigating explosive allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi descended into shouting and personal attacks on Wednesday, as a fierce debate erupted over whether to call members of the judiciary to testify.

The virtual meeting of the ad hoc committee, now on its second and final extension until 20 February 2026, was meant to finalise its witness schedule. However, the session quickly derailed when MK Party MP Sibonelo Nomvalo raised concerns that the witness list was skewed towards law enforcement, omitting the judiciary.

The suggestion ignited a fiery exchange. MK Party member David Skosana pointed to public submissions complaining about judges and cited EFF leader Julius Malema’s own past claims that some judges were “receiving bribes.” Committee Chairperson Soviet Lekganyane reiterated that anyone implicated by evidence would be invited to testify.

Malema’s Fiery Retort: “Put a Name of a Judge!”

This prompted a blistering response from Malema. While acknowledging his own criticisms of the Constitutional Court, he demanded concrete evidence from Skosana, challenging him to move beyond generalities.

“What stops you from bringing names now?” Malema fired across the virtual floor. “Put a name of a judge, stop shouting! Put a name of a judge, stop being a coward! Tell us which judge did the wrong thing!”

The heated moment laid bare the deep tensions and political manoeuvring within the high-stakes inquiry. Malema’s challenge framed the core dilemma: should the committee, based on unverified public submissions and political rhetoric, embark on the unprecedented and constitutionally sensitive step of summoning sitting judges?

A Race Against Time

Amidst the chaos, the committee is under pressure to conclude. Evidence leader Norman Arendse outlined a packed schedule for January, including testimonies from former top cops Khomotso Phahlane and Robert McBride, as well as controversial forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan.

The committee’s content adviser, Nicolette van Zyl-Gous, noted that most public submissions lacked “probative evidence” directly related to the allegations, recommending they be forwarded to other oversight bodies.

The clash over judicial testimony has thrown a new complication into an already complex probe. With the clock ticking towards its February deadline, the committee must now navigate not just allegations of police corruption, but a volatile political fight over how far its powers extendand whether it will cross the Rubicon of calling judges to account before Parliament.

{Source: Citizen}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com