Phiyega’s letter to Zuma about Farlam’s ‘malice’ in focus at inquiry

Suspended national police commissioner Riah Phiyega's legal team has slammed the prosecution's attempt to widen the scope of the board of inquiry set up by President Jacob Zuma to probe her 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 Phiyega‚ resulting in 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 Phiyega wrote to Zuma attacking the commission's damaging findings on her part.

In the letter‚ evidence leader advocate Ismail Jamie said 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.

Phiyega's lawyer advocate William Mokhari SC said the prosecution wanted to extend the scope of the inquiry to cover that Phiyega lied and misled Zuma‚ saying the president could have included this in the inquiry's terms of reference if he so wished.

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.

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.