SUSPENDED national police commissioner Riah
Phiyega’s legal team has criticised the prosecution’s attempt to widen
the scope of the board of inquiry set up by President Jacob Zuma, to
probe Gen Phiyega’s fitness to hold office.
The first session of the inquiry stemming from a recommendation by the Farlam Commission of Inquiry into the death of 44 people in Marikana in August 2012, got under way in Pretoria on Tuesday.
The Marikana commission made adverse findings against Gen Phiyega‚ resulting in Mr Zuma suspending her on allegations of misconduct‚ pending the outcome of the inquiry.
The prosecution‚ otherwise referred to as evidence leaders‚ also want board chairperson Judge Neels Claassen to rule on whether they were entitled to call witnesses that did not testify at the Marikana judicial commission of inquiry, and use evidence that was not presented in the commission‚ such as the letter that Gen Phiyega wrote to Mr Zuma attacking the commission’s damaging findings on her part.
In the letter‚ evidence leader advocate Ismail Jamie said Gen Phiyega attacked Judge Ian Farlam’s findings as malicious in content and scope‚ saying probing the contents of this letter should be included in the scope of the inquiry.
"For a national commissioner to accuse a judge of malice (demonstrates) her unfitness to hold office‚" he submitted.
Gen Phiyega’s lawyer, advocate William Mokhari SC, said the prosecution wanted to extend the scope of the inquiry to cover that Gen Phiyega lied and misled Mr Zuma‚ saying the president could have included this in the inquiry’s terms of reference if he so wished.
Mr Mokhari said the terms of reference were crafted by the President and no one could amend them but the President.
"The President has made it clear what parameters he wants this inquiry to be. Go back to the President and say to him extend the scope of the inquiry and include this in the terms of reference‚" he said.
Mr Mokhari submitted that the prosecution could call any witness they would like to call‚ provided that their sworn statements were made available to the defence and the defence be allowed to challenge the relevance of that testimony.
Judge Claassen is expected to rule on the matter.
TMG Digital
 |
| Riah Phiyega. Picture |
The first session of the inquiry stemming from a recommendation by the Farlam Commission of Inquiry into the death of 44 people in Marikana in August 2012, got under way in Pretoria on Tuesday.
The Marikana commission made adverse findings against Gen Phiyega‚ resulting in Mr Zuma suspending her on allegations of misconduct‚ pending the outcome of the inquiry.
The prosecution‚ otherwise referred to as evidence leaders‚ also want board chairperson Judge Neels Claassen to rule on whether they were entitled to call witnesses that did not testify at the Marikana judicial commission of inquiry, and use evidence that was not presented in the commission‚ such as the letter that Gen Phiyega wrote to Mr Zuma attacking the commission’s damaging findings on her part.
In the letter‚ evidence leader advocate Ismail Jamie said Gen Phiyega attacked Judge Ian Farlam’s findings as malicious in content and scope‚ saying probing the contents of this letter should be included in the scope of the inquiry.
"For a national commissioner to accuse a judge of malice (demonstrates) her unfitness to hold office‚" he submitted.
Gen Phiyega’s lawyer, advocate William Mokhari SC, said the prosecution wanted to extend the scope of the inquiry to cover that Gen Phiyega lied and misled Mr Zuma‚ saying the president could have included this in the inquiry’s terms of reference if he so wished.
Mr Mokhari said the terms of reference were crafted by the President and no one could amend them but the President.
"The President has made it clear what parameters he wants this inquiry to be. Go back to the President and say to him extend the scope of the inquiry and include this in the terms of reference‚" he said.
Mr Mokhari submitted that the prosecution could call any witness they would like to call‚ provided that their sworn statements were made available to the defence and the defence be allowed to challenge the relevance of that testimony.
Judge Claassen is expected to rule on the matter.
TMG Digital
No comments:
Post a Comment