Why Van Rooyen’s Testimony Matters
When the Madlanga Commission opened its doors to a third witness, the room buzzed with anticipation. Major‑General Petronella van Rooyen, who runs the legal division of the South African Police Service (SAPS), was slated to break down the very statutes that dictate what the police can and cannot do. Her appearance comes after two high‑profile police commissioners—Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi of KwaZulu‑Natal and national chief Fannie Masemola—painted a bleak picture of political interference and warned that criminal syndicates were closing in on the justice system.
Van Rooyen started by describing her place in the SAPS command chain. She reports to the divisional commissioner of legal services, which sits under the deputy national commissioner. From there, the line climbs to either General Lineo Nkhuoa or General Puleng Dimpane, and ultimately to the National Commissioner. This hierarchy, she explained, is designed to keep legal advice insulated from political pressure, yet recent events suggest the shield may be cracking.
Her primary focus was the instruction from Police Minister Senzo Mchunu to dissolve the KwaZulu‑Natal Political Killings Task Team (PKTT). The task team was created to investigate a spate of politically motivated murders, but its abrupt dismantling raised eyebrows across the country. Van Rooyen clarified which sections of the SAPS Act and the Police Services Amendment allow a minister to issue such orders, and where the limits of that power lie.
Implications for Police Accountability
Beyond the legal nit‑picking, van Rooyen’s testimony hits at the heart of accountability. If the minister can unilaterally revoke specialized units, what checks exist to prevent abuse? The commission is now zeroing in on three critical questions:
- Which statutory provisions grant the Police Minister authority over task‑specific formations?
- How does the SAPS legal division monitor compliance with those provisions?
- What recourse do senior police officials have if they believe an order threatens the rule of law?
Answers to these could determine whether the SAPS remains a tool of the state or a genuinely independent arm of justice. Observers note that the previous testimonies hinted at a systemic erosion: senior politicians allegedly pressuring police chiefs, interference in investigations, and a growing sense that illegal syndicates are slipping through the cracks.
Van Rooyen also highlighted the role of internal oversight bodies, such as the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and the Police Service Commission. She argued that without clear legislative backing, these bodies struggle to hold ministers and senior officers to account. Her remarks suggest that reform may need to start with tightening the language around ministerial powers, not merely punishing individual actors.
Stakeholders—from civil society groups to opposition parties—are watching closely. If the commission can pinpoint where legal authority ends and political overreach begins, it could pave the way for legislation that fortifies the police service against future meddling. The next days of hearings will likely probe deeper into the procedural safeguards, or lack thereof, that allowed the PKTT’s dissolution.
