Story audio is generated using AI
Advocate Dali Mpofu has raised several concerns regarding the treatment of suspended KwaZulu-Natal Hawks head Maj-Gen Lesetja Senona, arguing his appearance before the Madlanga commission of inquiry has been unfair.Senona appeared before the commission on Friday to respond to allegations concerning his involvement in the 2021 theft of 541kg of cocaine valued at R200m and his suspected collusion with organised crime syndicates.Before Senona’s testimony, Mpofu detailed what he described as unfair treatment by the commission. He claimed the commission has consistently refused to furnish his client with requested information that reportedly implicates him. Mpofu said when they wrote letters to the commission requesting the data, they received no response or unreasonable replies.“One of those responses was a ‘you don’t have to know what other people have said about you, just say what you know’ kind of thing. It would be hard to believe that is the policy of this commission as people have a right of reply,” Mpofu said.He further alleged that Senona has been denied the opportunity to properly answer the accusations against him.Mpofu also complained about the number of times Senona has been recalled to testify, and the repetitive nature of the questioning.On our analysis, he has been the witness who has been called back more than anyone else to come back here, despite the fact that he testified for three days in January— Advocate Dali Mpofu“The feeling of the general and us is that the issues he has been asked to deal with were already dealt with in his first appearance. “We might be wrong about this but on our analysis, he has been the witness who has been called back more than anyone else to come back here, despite the fact that he testified for three days in January.”According to Mpofu, more than 50% of the questions put to Senona had been asked previously and are already part of the transcript. “We don’t understand why that same information has to be solicited at great expense for the second time because it doesn’t change.”While acknowledging further evidence implicating Senona may have come before the commission, Mpofu emphasised that even if the repetitive questioning seems minor to others, it remains a deeply concerning and costly exercise for his team.Another concern raised by Mpofu was the relevance of the inquiries. He argued some questions do not align with the committee’s terms of reference. He urged the commission not to act as a “surrogate disciplinary committee” tasked with judging who is a better police officer. “We are not objecting in the sense of saying he won’t assist, because he is very willing to assist the commission, but he wants it to be known he’s doing it under some serious protest,” Mpofu added.Evidence leader advocate Mahlape Sello dismissed Mpofu’s allegations, countering that the commission has never refused to furnish Senona with documents and noting the general had never raised these concerns in his previous testimonies.“The general, even in his statement, doesn’t make such an allegation. There is not a single document the evidence leaders have been required to produce but have failed to produce,” Sello said.The to-and-fro has always been trying to clarify this challenge, why Senona believes he can only offer his version of events after everyone has spoken. The rules do not allow for that— Mahlape Sello, evidence leader She said the only issue Senona raised in his supplementary statement pertained to documents regarding the testimony of former Hawks (Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation) investigator Lt-Col Jakobus Prinsloo and another witness. Sello noted Senona was successfully provided with those documents two days before his statement was due.“It becomes challenging for me to appreciate exactly which documents we are said to have refused to produce on a serial basis [because] there are none,” Sello said.The evidence leader also addressed the claims that Senona was denied the right of reply.“Once a witness is implicated, we are under an obligation to issue a rule 3.5 notice to bring that to their attention and to afford that person the opportunity to deal with the implication. We have found none, and no rule 3.5 notices have been issued,” Sello said.Instead she noted the commission issued a regulation 10.6 notice, which is a document generated by evidence leaders based on the evidence and testimonies before the commission where they believe a specific person may be able to shed more light. “It becomes a challenge when we are confronted with an allegation that we do not afford Senona the right of reply. His right of reply will arise where he is implicated. Where he is not implicated, his right of reply doesn’t arise.”Sello disputed the complaint that Senona had been called to appear an excessive number of times, stating the claim did not tally with her official record and highlighting that several of Senona’s scheduled appearances had been postponed.She also dismissed the request that he only appear at the commission after everyone has testified on the Port Shepstone drug bust.“The to-and-fro has always been trying to clarify this challenge, why Senona believes he can only offer his version of events after everyone has spoken. The rules do not allow for that.”The proceedings continue.TimesLIVE
