WHY LIEUTENANT GENERAL MKHWANAZI WAS JUSTIFIED TO SPEAK OUT
“This moment demands more than outrage over procedure. It demands investigation. Independent bodies like IPID, the Public Protector, and Parliament must probe these claims with the urgency it deserves. If the allegations were to be proven baseless, let the truth then condemn Mkhwanazi. If not, South Africans deserve to know who is protecting killers from justice.”
In a country like South Africa, a nation perpetually confronted with political killings and institutional decay, it comes as no surprise when speaking out can be seen as “playing to the gallery” or insubordination. On Sunday, 06 July 2025, KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner, Lt. Gen. Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi stood before the media, flanked by elite officers, and alleged that senior officials – including Police Minister Senzo Mchunu and Deputy National Commissioner Shadrack Sibiya, were obstructing investigations and undermining justice.
Rather than applause, Mkhwanazi was met with condemnation by some, including prominent political leaders, politicians, activists and analysts. Critics said he “should have followed protocol.” But let us be clear: when protocol serves power over justice, breaking it is not betrayal, it is courage.
South Africans have been here before. From the Gupta leaks to whistleblowers like Athol Williams, Mosilo Mothepu, and others, the pattern is clear: insiders who expose wrongdoing are often punished. Not for lying, but for refusing to capitulate to power and misgovernance.
Mkhwanazi’s public briefing was not a stunt like many politicians from the ruling ANC suggested. In stark contrast, it was an act of last resort. He claimed that more than 100 politically sensitive case dockets were removed from a specialized task team without explanation. Investigations were shut down. Officers were reassigned. And the chain of command, which critics insist he should have used, was implicated in the very suppression he denounced.
What then does “protocol” mean in such a context? If internal avenues are compromised, if the structures that exist to deliver justice are hijacked – then appealing to those same structures is like handing matches to an arsonist and hoping he puts out the fire.
The SAPS Code of Conduct and Section 205 of the Constitution are clear: police officers must uphold the law, prevent and investigate crime, and serve the public without fear or favor. Mkhwanazi was doing precisely that. In revealing potential political interference, he was not acting against protocol, he was acting in its truest spirit.
Some took issue with the optics: Mkhwanazi donned tactical gear and stood before a backdrop of armed officers. It looked like some form of militarized theatre, they scoffed. However, in a province like KwaZulu-Natal, where political assassinations are tragically routine, the message was more likely one of urgency rather than aggression. It said: we have been compromised, we are under siege, but we remain resilient.
Let us also consider what “following protocol” would have achieved. With powerful individuals implicated, any quiet report would have disappeared into bureaucracy or worse, would have led to his own silencing. This is not paranoia; it is precedent. Too many South Africans have died or were discredited for trying to tell the truth through “proper channels.”
It is not the first time a top police officer has defied the system. Remember Robert McBride, Anwa Dramat, and others who spoke against corruption within law enforcement and paid a steep price? Therefore, we should not be vilifying Mkhwanazi, we should be listening to him.
Those who advocate for him to be disciplined, are not defending order; they are merely defending a fragile political narrative. To ignore the substance of his allegations and focus only on his methods is to miss the point. The real scandal isn’t that Mkhwanazi spoke out, it is that he had to. There should never have been dodgy dealings in the first place. South Africa should not have been allowed to deteriorate into a kakistocracy in the first place.
We should not allow “protocol” to become the refuge of the guilty. Sometimes, like in this instance, breaking ranks is the only way to preserve integrity. In a state that has often rewarded silence and punished courage, Mkhwanazi chose the harder path and like he said at the end, he was more than ready to face whatever consequences.
For that, he should not be bashed. He should be heard.
⌨ ᴺᴷᴼ⁻ᴸᴼⱽᴱˢ⁻ᵂᴿᴵᵀᴵᴺᴳ ✍ 
