The board of inquiry into the fitness of suspended national police commissioner General Riah Phiyega to hold office began on Tuesday morning as evidence leaders asked the board to rule on two preliminary issues.
The evidence leaders asked the board to rule on whether evidence leaders were entitled to call witnesses who did not testify at the Marikana Commission of Inquiry.
They also wanted the board to rule on whether evidence leaders were permitted to rely on evidence from the Marikana inquiry.
President Jacob Zuma established the board of inquiry last year following recommendations by Judge Ian Farlam in the Marikana report.
The Farlam commission‚ which submitted its final report to the government last year‚ implicated Phiyega and other senior police officers in the murders of 34 miners in Marikana‚ North West‚ on August 16‚ 2012.
Evidence leader Ismail Jamie SC asked board chairperson Judge Neels Claassen to rule on these two issues.
Jamie said the issue arose as a result of Phiyega’s statement of response where she said calling of witnesses should be for clarification and that witnesses should not lead further evidence.
“We have a problem with that‚” Jamie said.
He said‚ subject to relevance‚ commissioners may call anyone to testify.
On the second point‚ evidence leaders argued that the board required consideration not of only her evidence but also her representations to Zuma after the Marikana Commission of Inquiry.
“We don’t suggest she would not interact properly with the board.
“If the national commissioner acted in a manner that is dishonourable‚ it would be a perverse situation that this board will have to ignore all of that and only look at evidence that she gave.”
William Mokhari SC‚ for Phiyega‚ said what evidence leaders were doing was to extend the scope of inquiry by looking at representations that Phiyega made to Zuma after the release of the Marikana Commission of Inquiry.
“The president has made it clear what he wants parameters of this inquiry to be.
“If evidence leaders wanted to know whether the representations she made to the president were misleading‚ this would have been put as a term of reference‚” Mokhari said.
The inquiry continues.
Phiyega fitness inquiry opens with questions over scope
The evidence leaders asked the board to rule on whether evidence leaders were entitled to call witnesses who did not testify at the Marikana Commission of Inquiry.
They also wanted the board to rule on whether evidence leaders were permitted to rely on evidence from the Marikana inquiry.
President Jacob Zuma established the board of inquiry last year following recommendations by Judge Ian Farlam in the Marikana report.
The Farlam commission‚ which submitted its final report to the government last year‚ implicated Phiyega and other senior police officers in the murders of 34 miners in Marikana‚ North West‚ on August 16‚ 2012.
Evidence leader Ismail Jamie SC asked board chairperson Judge Neels Claassen to rule on these two issues.
Jamie said the issue arose as a result of Phiyega’s statement of response where she said calling of witnesses should be for clarification and that witnesses should not lead further evidence.
“We have a problem with that‚” Jamie said.
He said‚ subject to relevance‚ commissioners may call anyone to testify.
On the second point‚ evidence leaders argued that the board required consideration not of only her evidence but also her representations to Zuma after the Marikana Commission of Inquiry.
“We don’t suggest she would not interact properly with the board.
“If the national commissioner acted in a manner that is dishonourable‚ it would be a perverse situation that this board will have to ignore all of that and only look at evidence that she gave.”
William Mokhari SC‚ for Phiyega‚ said what evidence leaders were doing was to extend the scope of inquiry by looking at representations that Phiyega made to Zuma after the release of the Marikana Commission of Inquiry.
“The president has made it clear what he wants parameters of this inquiry to be.
“If evidence leaders wanted to know whether the representations she made to the president were misleading‚ this would have been put as a term of reference‚” Mokhari said.
The inquiry continues.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos