Hearing record

Day 5

23 September 2025

Witness: Lieutenant-General Fannie Masemola

Evidence led by Advocate Mahlape Sello SC

Masemola's evidence continues, turning to the detail of how the Political Killings Task Team was dismantled and to the chain of communication that followed. The exchanges grow tense as commissioners test his account against the record.

Official transcript (PDF) ↗All hearing days

Awaiting portrait

The day in brief

What you need to know

Masemola gives further detail on the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team and the events around it.
He reiterates that he escalated Mchunu's disbandment order, including to President Ramaphosa.
Tensions rise as the chairperson questions Masemola about Mchunu's alleged interference.
The commission continues to test apparent contradictions in the national commissioner's evidence.
His two days of testimony leave the PKTT dispute firmly on the record as the inquiry's opening fault line.

Full coverage

The day, in depth

The dismantling, in detail

IOL reported on 23 September 2025 that tensions rose as Masemola set out the details of how the Political Killings Task Team was disbanded. His account traced the instruction, his objections and the steps he said he took in response, filling in the mechanics behind the previous day's headline claim of ministerial overreach.

Escalating to the president

EWN reported that Masemola told the commission he had informed President Ramaphosa about Mchunu's attempt to disband the task team. The Citizen captured the tenor of the questioning, noting an exchange in which Masemola remarked that 'life goes on' as Madlanga pressed him on Mchunu's alleged interference. Mchunu, suspended, has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing.

Our analysis

The bottom line

The second Masemola day fleshed out the how behind the what. Establishing that a minister issued the order was one thing; walking the commission through the sequence of objection and escalation is what turns a claim of interference into something the inquiry can actually adjudicate against documents and dates.

The rising tension in the room was not incidental. When even a corroborating witness draws sharp questioning from the chairperson, it signals that the commission intends to hold every account to the same standard, regardless of whether it supports the opening narrative. That even-handedness is what will give the commission's eventual findings their credibility, and it is why nothing here should be read as a verdict against those named.

Analysis is the archive’s own comment on the public proceedings, grounded in the record above. It weighs the evidence and the process; questions of individual guilt are for the courts and the commission to decide. Everyone named is presumed innocent.

On the record