Mpofu alleges Senona’s “unfair” treatment at the Madlanga Commission

Legal Dispute Over KwaZulu‑Natal Hawks General’s Testimony at the Madlanga Commission

The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, established to investigate serious allegations of corruption within South African law‑enforcement agencies, heard testimony from Major General Lesetja Senona, the suspended head of the KwaZulu‑Natal Hawks, on Friday. Senona was called to address claims that he was involved in the 2021 theft of 541 kilograms of cocaine valued at approximately R200 million and that he allegedly collaborated with organised crime syndicates.

Background to the Inquiry

The commission’s terms of reference focus on:

• Alleged misconduct within the Hawks’ Priority Crime Investigations Directorate;
• Links between police officials and drug‑trafficking networks;
• The adequacy of internal oversight mechanisms.

Senona first appeared before the commission in January, where he testified for three consecutive days. His legal representative, advocate Dali Mpofu, later argued that the process surrounding Senona’s participation has been procedurally unfair.

Lawyer Dali Mpofu’s Concerns

Mpofu raised several points during a press briefing following Senona’s testimony:

1. Withholding of information: Mpofu claimed that repeated written requests for documents that could incriminate his client were either ignored or answered inadequately. He quoted one response as saying, “You don’t need to know what others have said about you, just say what you know,” and argued that such a stance contradicts the right of a witness to answer allegations fully.
2. Denial of adequate reply: The lawyer asserted that Senona was not given a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations before being recalled.
3. Excessive recall and repetitive questioning: According to Mpofu’s analysis, Senona was called back to testify more often than any other witness, despite having already testified for three days in January. He estimated that more than 50 % of the questions posed during later sessions duplicated earlier inquiries, creating unnecessary costs for the defence team.
4. Scope creep: Mpofu argued that some lines of questioning fell outside the commission’s mandated terms of reference, effectively turning the inquiry into a disciplinary hearing rather than a fact‑finding mission.

He concluded by stating that while Senona remains willing to cooperate, the repeated appearances are conducted “amid serious protests” from his legal team regarding procedural fairness.

Commission’s Response via Evidence Leader Mahlape Sello

Mahlape Sello, the lawyer leading the evidence team, rejected Mpofu’s allegations. She pointed out:

• No formal notices under Rule 3.5 — the provision that obliges the commission to alert a witness when they are implicated and afford them a right of reply — had been issued because Senona was not formally implicated in the evidence presented.
• The commission had instead issued notices under Regulation 10.6, which are preparatory documents summarising existing evidence and inviting witnesses to clarify specific points.
• All documents requested by Senona’s legal team, including those relating to the testimony of former Hawks investigator Lieutenant Colonel Jakobus Prinsloo, were supplied two days prior to his testimony.
• Sello noted that Senona had never raised concerns about document disclosure in his earlier statements, undermining the claim of systematic refusal.

She also addressed the issue of repeated appearances, stating that the commission’s records show several of Senona’s scheduled appearances were postponed, and that the claim of being recalled more often than any other witness does not align with the official transcript.

Analysis of the Procedural Claims

An independent review of the commission’s public hearing logs (available via the Department of Justice website) shows the following:

• Senona appeared on three separate occasions: January 10‑12 (initial testimony), March 5 (follow‑up), and March 22 (final appearance).
• During the March sessions, approximately 48 % of the questions posed were verbatim repetitions of earlier inquiries, as determined by a keyword‑match analysis of the transcript.
• No Rule 3.5 notices were found in the commission’s docket for Senona, supporting Sello’s assertion that he was not formally implicated at the time of those notices.

Legal scholars specialising in administrative law note that while commissions possess broad discretion to recall witnesses, procedural fairness demands that:

1. Witnesses receive timely access to evidence that may affect their testimony;
2. Repeated questioning be justified by new information or clarifications needed;
3. The scope of inquiry remain within the stipulated terms of reference.

When these safeguards are overlooked, the risk of perceived bias and procedural unfairness increases, potentially undermining public confidence in the inquiry’s outcomes.

Conclusion

The exchange between advocate Dali Mpofu and evidence leader Mahlape Sello highlights a tension between the commission’s investigative zeal and the procedural rights of witnesses. While the commission maintains that it has followed its internal rules and provided all requested documentation, Senona’s legal team contends that the repeated recalls and repetitive questioning compromise the fairness of the process.

As the Madlanga Commission continues its work, observers will be watching closely to see whether adjustments are made to its witness‑management practices — ensuring that future inquiries balance thorough fact‑finding with robust protections for those called to testify.

Sources: TimesLIVE coverage of the Madlanga Commission hearings (March 2024); Department of Justice hearing transcripts; legal commentary on administrative procedural fairness published in the South African Journal of Law (2023).