Phiyega inquiry given nod for fresh evidence

SUSPENDED police commissioner Riah Phiyega’s defence at the inquiry into her fitness to hold office suffered a setback yesterday, as the investigation’s scope was broadened to include new evidence and witnesses.

Judge Neels Claassen, who is heading the inquiry, ruled that the state could call any witness it deemed relevant to the inquiry, and any evidence that came up after the Farlam commission’s report could be used. This came after Ms Phiyega’s legal team resisted the move by the evidence leaders to widen the scope of the board of inquiry.

The ruling could open Ms Phiyega to further scrutiny as new evidence will be presented including a damning letter by Ms Phiyega to President Jacob Zuma in which she criticised Judge Ian Farlam, head of the Marikana inquiry.

“It stands to reason that the representation made (by Ms Phiyega) to the president ... after the Farlam commission (report) had relevance in the sense that in those representations she sought to explain her absence of guilt,” Judge Claassen said.

The inquiry, which got under way in Centurion yesterday, was set up following a recommendation by the Farlam commission, appointed by Mr Zuma after the Marikana massacre in 2012 during a protracted labour dispute at Lonmin’s Marikana mine.

Ms Phiyega has indicated that she will be taking the Farlam report on review in a legal process over what she termed were “irregular- ities” following the damning findings against her.

The ruling to broaden the scope of the inquiry came after evidence leader Ismail Jamie’s request to Judge Claassen to decide whether witnesses could be called, including those who had testified before the Farlam commission and those who had not.

Mr Jamie said Ms Phiyega’s letter in which she had accused Judge Farlam of malice showed that she was unfit to hold office.

“We are … of the view that the evidence leaders would also be entitled to refer to such conduct after the Farlam commission’s conclusion,” said Judge Claassen.

Among other issues, the inquiry has been tasked to look into whether Ms Phiyega acted alone or with other leaders when she “misled” the commission on the decision to implement a “tactical option”. This decision led to the shooting of 34 workers by police on August 16 2012.

Ms Phiyega’s attorney, William Mokhari, said the president’s terms of reference for the inquiry stated that the evidence leaders could not call witnesses who were not at the Farlam commission, or use evidence that came after the commission’s sitting.

“(Ms Phiyega’s) position is that the evidence leaders are bound by the terms of reference which establish this board,” he said.

Mr Mokhari later conceded the important matter would be for new witnesses to give statements before they testified, so it could be decided whether their testimony was in line with the terms of reference.