PRETORIA — Former South African Police Service (SAPS) detective head Jeremy Veary has called for a reconsideration of the Madlanga Commission’s duration following the recent shooting of Crime Intelligence deputy head Feroz Khan. Veary warns that the attack highlights severe security oversights and underscores the intense fear among implicated parties regarding Khan’s anticipated testimony.
Describing the situation as highly worrisome, Veary noted that the danger faced by a top SAPS official is deeply concerning, especially given the context of the ongoing commission. He pointed out that much of the sensitive information Khan is expected to address was likely extracted from electronic devices seized from him. Consequently, Veary believes that numerous individuals are terrified of being implicated by the evidence Khan will present at the commission.
Veary emphasized that standard security protocols should have been triggered well in advance. He argued that once it becomes clear what a witness intends to testify about, a thorough threat assessment must be conducted. The commission, he stated, should provide assurances that these evaluations were completed and that necessary protection—potentially arranged through the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)—was offered to the witness. If these standard procedures were bypassed in Khan’s case, Veary called it a critical oversight that demands public scrutiny.
The former detective head stressed that the violence was not entirely unforeseen, referencing past warnings that went unheeded. He recalled a prescient statement made by Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi following the aborted arrest of General Kumalo. At the time, Mkhwanazi warned that urgent intervention was required, predicting there would be “blood on the streets” if the escalating tensions were not addressed.
Beyond the security failures, Veary also raised concerns about the integrity of the investigation into the shooting itself. He questioned the wisdom of involving the PKTT in the probe, suggesting that their participation could lead to conflicts of interest. To eliminate any potential questions regarding the matter’s impartiality, Veary argued that the investigation should have been handed over to an independent team that did not require the PKTT’s involvement at this stage.
