North West Premier Lazarus Mokgosi has charged a provincial legislature committee with reaching conclusions against him in secret and with pressing ahead toward public findings without hearing key witnesses, without giving him the evidence against him, and without first allowing him to answer the case laid before the committee.
The claims are contained in a legal letter sent to the speaker of the North West Legislature and the evidence leaders of the ad hoc committee after the committee announced that it would brief the media on the outcome of its explosive probe into alleged tampering in the Naledi local municipality municipal manager appointment process.
The premier’s complaint followed a claim that the committee moved to conclude one of the province’s most politically charged investigations, yet failed to call witnesses whom Mokgosi says stand at the heart of the matter.
In a letter dated May 7, the premier’s lawyers ask: “Has the ad hoc committee finalised its investigations without the testimony of two key witnesses to the allegations made?”
Finger points at ANC heavyweights
The letter names ANC heavyweight Nono Maloyi and Dr Bole and says testimony already before the committee linked them to the “drawing, evaluation, approval, compilation, recommending, signature, and release” of the disputed recruitment report.
“It is quite absurd that a committee established to act impartially has already concluded its investigations without the missing piece of the puzzle,” the lawyers wrote.
And with those words, the premier’s legal team struck at the integrity of the entire process.
The lawyers then raised what may become the defining issue of the inquiry, saying the committee allegedly broke its own rules by moving toward final findings before giving Mokgosi a provisional report and before giving him a proper chance to respond to the evidence against him.
According to the letter, the premier was not informed that the committee had compiled a provisional report or that findings had been adopted, tabled before the legislature, or finalized.
Instead, the premier learned through a public notice that the committee was preparing to address the media on the conclusion of its hearings and deliberations, and his lawyers say this happened while he remained an implicated person who had not been given the protections set out in the committee’s own terms of reference.
The attorneys pointed to clause 10 of the committee’s framework, which says that anyone who may be found to have done something wrong “must be afforded an opportunity to address the evidence against him or her” and that a provisional report must be given before the report is tabled in the legislature.
“None of the outcomes have been communicated to our client, who remains an implicated and affected person,” the attorneys wrote.
Interference in municipal manager’s appointment
The inquiry itself arose after the Naledi local municipality mayor, Clifton Groep, alleged interference in the appointment of the municipal manager, and the legislature established the ad hoc committee to determine whether individuals within the government or the provincial legislature colluded to tamper with a recruitment report submitted to the MEC for cooperative governance and traditional affairs.
The committee’s mandate carried grave implications, for it empowered members to determine whether any conduct amounted to “serious misconduct or a serious violation of the Constitution or the law”, and the findings of such a process could cut deep into the political standing of those implicated.
Yet the same framework that armed the committee with those powers also bound it to procedural fairness, to sworn evidence, and to the right of implicated persons to answer the evidence before findings could be finalised.
Now Mokgosi’s lawyers say the committee abandoned those very principles, and in a final warning shot, they demanded written answers from the Speaker so they could advise the premier on possible further legal action.
- North West Premier Lazarus Mokgosi accuses a provincial legislature committee of secretive conclusions, excluding key witnesses, and denying him evidence or a chance to respond during an investigation into alleged tampering in the Naledi municipality manager appointment.
- Mokgosi’s legal team claims the committee did not hear testimony from two key witnesses, ANC figures Nono Maloyi and Dr. Bole, despite their alleged involvement in the disputed recruitment report.
- The committee is accused of breaking its own rules by finalizing findings without providing Mokgosi a provisional report or an opportunity to address the allegations against him.
- The inquiry was sparked by allegations from Naledi Mayor Clifton Groep about interference in the municipal manager appointment process, with the committee empowered to investigate serious misconduct or constitutional violations.
- Mokgosi’s lawyers demand written explanations from the Speaker, warning of possible further legal action due to procedural unfairness and violations of the committee’s framework.
In a letter dated May 7, the premier's lawyers ask: “Has the ad hoc committee finalised its investigations without the testimony of two key witnesses to the allegations made?”
“It is quite absurd that a committee established to act impartially has already concluded its investigations without the missing piece of the puzzle,” the lawyers wrote.
Instead, the premier learned through a public notice that the committee was preparing to address the media on the conclusion of its hearings and deliberations, and his lawyers say this happened while he remained an implicated person who had not been given the protections set out in the committee’s own terms of reference.
“None of the outcomes have been communicated to our client, who remains an implicated and affected person,” the attorneys wrote.
Yet the same framework that armed the committee with those powers also bound it to procedural fairness, to sworn evidence, and to the right of implicated persons to answer the evidence before findings could be finalised.
Now Mokgosi’s lawyers say the committee abandoned those very principles, and in a final warning shot, they demanded written answers from the Speaker so they could advise the premier on possible further legal action.
