Many are wondering why Lieutenant General Shadrack Sibiya Khan was not summoned to testify before the parliamentary ad-hoc committee and why Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi was invited to appear twice. This has raised concerns about the selection procedure of witnesses.
Many in the public and among political watchers feel strongly that the committee should treat all important persons connected to the investigations fairly. Opponents argue that if the committee heard from more diverse witnesses, it would be more transparent and the public would have more faith in its findings.
On the other hand, committee backers insist that the committee invites witnesses depending on how pertinent the material is and how broad the investigation is. Parliamentary committees, they say, should be free to choose anybody they think will be most useful in their investigations.
Parliament has not provided any explanation for its witness selection decisions, thus conjecture about the process can continue. According to legal experts, ad hoc committees have the authority to call witnesses if they think it’s essential. However, they are also supposed to follow parliamentary procedures and conduct themselves fairly and impartially.
There have been repeated requests for more openness in high-profile probes, and this discussion reflects that. In order to allay fears and restore faith in the reliability of the committee’s conclusions, experts think it would be beneficial for the group to be transparent about its processes.
Committee hearings will likely continue as the group collects evidence in preparation for its report and recommendations.