Phiyega

General Mkhwanazi agreed not to continue as Acting National Commissioner beyond the appointment of General Phiyega on 12 June 2012, who had no policing experience.

“it was agreed that General Mkhwanazi would not continue as Acting National Commissioner beyond the few remaining weeks that were required to appoint a new National Commissioner, General Phiyega . With zero policing experience … was duly appointed on the 12th of June.”

The SCA judgment (Murphy judgment) is scathing against the police and specifically against Generals Phiyega and Mkhwanazi for political interference in disciplinary processes, and it had been kept hidden for over 10 years.

“it is the High Court and it is a scathing judgment against, this is what is referred to as the Murphy judgment, and it is a scathing judgment against the police... And against, in particular, General Phiyega and General Mkhwanazi, against both of them. And this judgment has not seen the light of day for probably 10 years or more”

General Mkhwanazi covered up and maintained silence during the period of suspension and court cases involving Richard Ndluli, despite the case being public in media and the Supreme Court of Appeal detailing how General Phiyega misled the High Court and General Mkhwanazi kept quiet.

“he cove red u p , a n d s e c o n d l y , h e c o n t i n u e d t o c o v e r u p ... M a i n t a i n i n g s i l e n c e , b e c a u s e w h a t h a p p e n e d ... d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d t h e w h o l e t h i n g w a s a r g u e d o u t i n c o u r t ... A n d t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f A p p e a l g o i n t o s o m e d e t a i l a b o u t h o w G e n e r a l P h i y e g a m i s l e d t h e H i g h C o u r t , a n d G e n e r a l M k h w a n a z i k e p t q u i e t”

General Mkhwanazi was a party to the original Part A proceedings but was not a party to later proceedings where General Phiyega was the party being sued.

“He was a party to the original proceedings ... but he was no t a p a r t y to those proceedings where now General Phiyega is the party that is being sued.”

General Phiyega admitted she made a mistake and that her parliamentary statement about withdrawing charges was not correct; the NPA had decided to withdraw charges and she followed suit, indicating lying about the basis for the decision.

“General Phiyega’s conduct in the FUL response ... he said at Parliament was not correct. He made a mistake. What he actually meant was the NPA had decided to withdraw the charges and that is why he followed suit. The whole thing was a complete lie.”

General Mkhwanazi kept quiet for 8 years about political interference except that in 2015 he spoke about interference without naming the party, and lodged a grievance about General Phiyega misleading the court in the Mdluli matter.

“General Mkhwanazi kept quiet for 8 years about the political interference ... as far back as 2015, he spoke about the fact that General Phiyega misled the court in relation to the Mdluli matter ... he lodged a grievance ...”

General Phiyega gave false information to the court denying instruction from above to General Mkhwanazi.

“General Phiyega gave a complete pack of lies to the court, which was published.”

General Mkhwanazi made a grievance against General Phiyega for being untruthful in her answering affidavit to the High Court, indicating he knew of the allegation of unlawful obstruction to him at the center of the application.

“General Mkhwanazi therefore knew that the allegation of an unlawful obstruction to him was at the centre of the application and the reply from General Phiyega would have to admit that central allegation if she was not going to perjure herself.”

General Mkhwanazi's claim that he was completely unaware of the contents of General Phiyega's affidavit is unconvincing because he lodged a grievance about her untruthfulness.

“General Mkhwanazi claims in his affidavit ... that he was completely unaware of the contents of General Phiyega's affidavit ... I find that claim unconvincing because he had made a grievance against her for being untruthful in her answering affidavit to the High Court.”

The court concluded that decisions were either dictated to by Mkhwanazi or taken for no reason at all, as neither Mkhwanazi nor Phiyega provided reasons for impugned decisions.

“I do not believe this finding can be faulted. Moreover, after all is said and done, neither Mkhwanazi nor Phiyega gave any reasons for the impugned decision. ... the inevitable conclusion is that the decisions were either dictated to by Mkhwanazi or were taken for no reason at all.”

The Supreme Court of Appeal struck the evidence of Phiyega because there was no confirmatory affidavit from General Mkhwanazi to support it, rendering the evidence immaterial.

“what they have done in the Supreme Court of Appeal is they have struck the evidence of Phiyega because she stated on the oath that this is actually what really happened and to prove it, I am going to come with a confirmatory affidavit from General Mkhwanazi. And since there was no confirmatory affidavit, they struck that evidence. They said that is immaterial.”