Spotlight on Chaos

Key Takeaways:

• The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Democratic Alliance (DA) MPs, Leigh-Ann Mathys and Glynnis Breytenbach, engaged in a heated exchange during a multiparty police committee meeting.
• The discussion centered around the "weaponised prosecution" of Julius Malema, with Mathys accusing Breytenbach of using the platform for incorrect purposes.
• The committee’s focus was criticized for being "shallow, hostile, and ignorant" and for prioritizing "heat" over "light" in their questioning of witnesses.
• The treatment of Robert McBride, a former head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid), was particularly concerning, with some members of the committee introducing his personal life into the proceedings.
• The committee’s inability to collectively hold individuals accountable and prioritize public interest over party instincts was highlighted as a significant issue.

Introduction to the Committee Meeting
The multiparty police committee meeting of the 7th Government of National Unity (GNU) Parliament of South Africa was marked by a heated exchange between Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Democratic Alliance (DA) MPs, Leigh-Ann Mathys and Glynnis Breytenbach. The discussion began with Mathys offering an apology for Julius Malema’s absence, citing his preparation for an upcoming court appearance. However, the tone quickly shifted when Mathys spoke of Malema’s "weaponised prosecution," prompting Breytenbach to intervene and accuse Mathys of using the platform for incorrect purposes.

The Heated Exchange
The exchange between Mathys and Breytenbach was intense, with both women refusing to back down. Mathys warned Breytenbach that she would not be ignored, while Breytenbach shot back, saying that she did not need Mathys’ permission to speak. The committee chair, Soviet Lekganyane, attempted to intervene, but his efforts were drowned out by the arguing MPs. The situation escalated to the point where Lekganyane instructed both women to stand and greet each other, but they refused, standing with their hands in their pockets and their faces set in anger.

The Testimony of Robert McBride
The committee’s focus then shifted to the testimony of Robert McBride, a former head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid). McBride’s appearance was marked by a series of questions from committee members, including David Skosana, who seemed determined to prove that McBride was working with the CIA to destabilize the country. However, many of the questions asked were criticized for generating "heat" rather than "light," with some members of the committee introducing personal attacks and irrelevant information into the proceedings.

Criticism of the Committee’s Approach
The committee’s approach was widely criticized, with many arguing that it was more focused on settling political scores than on holding individuals accountable. Henriette Abrahams, a veteran anti-apartheid activist, posted on Facebook that she was "disgusted" by the treatment of McBride and that the committee had "no notion of the difference between oversight and the settling of political scores." Abrahams argued that the committee’s questions were often superficial and failed to engage with the complexity of the issues at hand.

The Importance of Accountability
The committee’s inability to collectively hold individuals accountable and prioritize public interest over party instincts is a significant issue. In an election year, it is essential for citizens and voters to think carefully about where they place their trust. The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, which is currently underway, offers a more promising approach to accountability, with seasoned advocates and lawyers working to uncover the truth about the South African Police Service’s involvement with cartels and mafias. Ultimately, it is crucial that Parliament learns to account collectively to various constituencies and prioritizes public interest over party politics.