National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza on Thursday expressed her “unequivocal confidence” in the competence and integrity of Parliament’s legal advisory services team that has been assigned to support the ad hoc committee investigating allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.

Parliament established the committee after Mkhwanazi claimed corruption, political interference and malfeasance within the South African Police Service (Saps).

Earlier this month, the committee held its first meeting, and this week the committee reconvened and agreed on its final version of its terms of reference, which might be sent to members later this week.

Didiza said she was concerned about some remarks made during proceedings of the ad hoc committee, where the competence and integrity of the Parliamentary legal services team assigned to support the committee had been questioned.

While there was a suggestion that external legal advice be sought to lead evidence in the ad hoc committee, Didiza reaffirmed that its internal legal services provided the necessary expertise.

“Even if external advisers were engaged, they too would be entitled to the same respect and decorum expected towards the highly qualified legal team that currently serves the institution,” she said.

She pointed out that casting aspersions on the Parliamentary legal services team for the way in which it delivered its legal opinions or for its advice, posed a serious risk to the credibility of Parliament and to the integrity of its processes, including those currently before the ad hoc committee.

“…it is also unfair and unjust to the individuals concerned,” she added.

Didiza stated that Parliamentary legal advisers were highly qualified, admitted legal practitioners, governed by the Legal Practice Act and accountable to professional bodies such as the Legal Practice Council.

“Their work is rooted in principles of ethical conduct, professional responsibility, and the pursuit of justice in support of the constitutional mandate of Parliament,” she said.

“Over many years, the drafting services and advice provided by this unit have passed the test under the most rigorous legal and constitutional scrutiny and the team has consistently guided the institution with credibility and authority,” she explained.

Didiza pointed out that while Members of Parliament might, at times, find certain legal opinions “unpalatable or may disagree with them”, the opinions were based on sound legal reasoning and were intended to support committees to act within the framework of the Constitution and the law.