Parliament’s ad hoc committee has spent the best part of a year digging into claims of criminal syndicate infiltration inside the South African Police Service, and the inquiry is now hurtling towards a damning final report against suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu. After months of hearings, walkouts, pushback from Mchunu’s legal team and even a snub from Parliament’s own intelligence committee, the multiparty panel is preparing to publish findings that could redefine accountability at the top of the SAPS.
The ad hoc committee was set up by the National Assembly on 25 July 2025 following explosive allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. Mkhwanazi told the country that a criminal syndicate had captured senior politicians, senior cops and even elements of the judiciary. He pointed a finger squarely at Mchunu, accusing him of interfering in high-profile investigations and protecting politically connected suspects. Mchunu was subsequently suspended from his position as Police Minister while the probe ran its course.
At the centre of the dispute is a controversial December 2024 directive in which Mchunu allegedly ordered the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team based in KwaZulu-Natal. The unit had been investigating politically motivated murders in the province, many of them linked to ANC factional battles. According to the committee’s emerging view, Mchunu acted outside constitutional and legal boundaries when he shut the team down without proper consultation.
Lawyers for Mchunu have been fighting the process every step of the way. They have written to the committee demanding that the first report — the preliminary findings released earlier in the inquiry — be set aside. Their core argument is that their client was never given a proper opportunity to answer the allegations against him before adverse findings were drafted. Mchunu eventually appeared before the committee on 22 October 2025, where he was grilled on everything from the task team decision to his relationship with suspended officials.
| Key Player | Role in the Inquiry | Position Taken |
|---|---|---|
| Lt Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi | KZN Police Commissioner, whistle-blower | Alleges criminal syndicate has infiltrated SAPS, judiciary and politics |
| Senzo Mchunu | Suspended Police Minister, respondent | Denies wrongdoing, accuses committee of prejudgement |
| Ad Hoc Committee | Parliamentary multiparty probe | Drafting final report finding Mchunu acted unconstitutionally |
| JSCI | Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence | Withdrew cooperation, refused to share classified material |
| Mchunu’s Legal Team | Defence representation | Wants preliminary report set aside, alleges procedural unfairness |
The most dramatic twist came when the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI) withdrew its cooperation with the ad hoc committee. Intelligence-committee members argued that the inquiry was straying into classified territory and that sharing sensitive material would compromise national security. The snub has left significant gaps in the parliamentary probe, particularly around surveillance operations and intelligence reports that allegedly link senior officials to underworld figures.
The Mchunu Report and a Crisis in Parliament
Insiders say the Parliament ad hoc committee Mchunu report is now being finalised under intense time pressure because the committee’s term is set to lapse. Committee members have been holding marathon sessions to reconcile competing versions of what happened in December 2024. One source described the atmosphere as “a serious institutional crisis”, a phrase that has since become shorthand for the report’s overall thrust.
The findings, once tabled, are expected to conclude that Mchunu’s directive to disband the Political Killings Task Team was unconstitutional, irrational and procedurally flawed. The committee is also said to be preparing recommendations for criminal referrals, lifestyle audits and possible impeachment proceedings. Crucially, the report is likely to call for a full structural review of the SAPS top brass, given the broader allegations of political interference raised by Mkhwanazi.
| Mchunu’s Defence | Committee’s Draft Findings |
|---|---|
| Directive was a routine reshuffle | Directive was unconstitutional and politically motivated |
| Task team was duplicating work of other units | Task team was investigating sensitive politically connected murders |
| Committee is biased and predetermined | Process has been fair, with multiple opportunities to respond |
| JSCI’s refusal to cooperate invalidates findings | Gaps can be addressed through other evidence sources |
As we reported earlier, Mkhwanazi was recalled to the committee to respond to cross-examination on his original allegations. His testimony is widely seen as the backbone of the committee’s case. He doubled down on claims that politicians, police generals, prosecutors and even magistrates are on the payroll of a well-organised criminal network that runs extortion, construction and tender rackets in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng.
The committee has also been plagued by internal squabbles. Some ANC MPs have openly distanced themselves from the harsher draft conclusions, while opposition parties — particularly the DA, EFF and IFP — have pushed for the strongest possible language against Mchunu. This has made consensus difficult, and the final report may carry minority views and dissenting chapters.
If the National Assembly adopts the committee’s findings, the political fallout will be significant. Mchunu could face a formal impeachment motion, and President Cyril Ramaphosa would come under renewed pressure to act decisively on the broader Mkhwanazi claims. The SAPS itself may be forced into a leadership shake-up, with the Inspector General and several provincial commissioners likely to be called before Parliament in the new financial year.
The story is far from over. Mchunu’s lawyers have already signalled that they will approach the Western Cape High Court to interdict the adoption of the report if it goes ahead in its current form. That legal challenge could see this political drama spilling into the courts well into 2026, ensuring the ad hoc committee’s work remains in the headlines for months to come.