It exercises force on

behalf of all South

“mutiny” against Phiyega and had had no intention of interfering with the process initiated by Zuma.

Their statement had been intended to bolster morale, they claimed.

But, in the first place, they did not explain why the statement was issued two weeks after they had discussed it, and on the morning after Phiyega had written back to Zuma.

Nor did they offer an adequate reason for deeming it fit to announce their full support for their boss in public – as opposed to simply communicating this to SAPS members via the usual internal channels – given the seriousness of the findings against her.

Far from reassuring the public, as they claimed they had intended to do, it could be argued their unwavering support for such a compromised figure would be more likely to alarm it.

As ANC MP Livhuhani Mabija suggested, the SAPS tendency to close ranks in defence of one of its own is precisely the cause of public distrust.

It is why the conviction this week of eight policemen for the murder of Mozambican Mido Macia, among the many and mounting claims of police brutality, is so unusual.

Still, the SAPS top brass don’t seem to get it.

Only four of the nine provincial commissioners and three divisional commissioners who signed the statement in support of Phiyega have apologised unconditionally – as they were instructed to do by chairman of the police committee Francois Beukman.

The rest have indicated they support a statement issued later that day by police spokesman Solomon Makgale in which the board of commissioners said they wanted to “correct the misconceptions” caused by the earlier statement.

They expressed “regret” for the “unintended consequences of the statement”.

Now the committee is set to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the issuing of the statements in Phiyega’s defence, invoking rules 201 and 138 of the National Assembly.

This is a big step for Parliament, which has never launched such an investigation before.

It may be that it arises from a unique alignment of the political stars, rather than a sudden zeal for accountability.

Recent evidence – from Parliament’s handling of the Nkandla saga to its turning a blind eye to the unlawful removal of members of the SABC board – favours such an interpretation.

But institutions, ultimately, evolve by the setting of precedents.

If we are to have a police service that understands its place in a constitutional democracy, which as Judge Ian Farlam put it in his report, “has a duty of public accountability and truth- telling, because it exercises force on behalf of all South Africans”, then much rides on the police committee’s willingness to stay the course in its investigation.

Parliament is also more than just a forum for shaming delinquent officials.

Much of its work is laborious, uncontroversial and happens under the media radar.

But at least one test of its effectiveness is the extent to which it ensures there are consequences when it finds wrongdoing.

So many scandals could have been prevented, and state resources saved, if Parliament’s oversight committees had acted on information suggesting something was amiss.