MPs recommend an ad hoc parliament committee to investigate Mkhwanazi’s allegations:
Parliament’s justice and police committees have recommended the formation of an ad hoc committee to consider allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, including against suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu.
During a joint sitting on Wednesday, committee members agreed that this was the most appropriate mechanism to consider Mkhwanazi’s allegations that Mchunu pressured him to disband a unit investigating organised crime in KwaZulu-Natal.
ActionSA MP Athol Trollip said parliament must avoid duplicating efforts already under way through other oversight structures, while Rise Mzansi legislator Makashule Gana emphasised the urgency of the matter.
“This work must be wrapped up before the end of the year,” he said.
National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza had tasked the committees with determining how to handle Mkhwanazi’s allegations earlier this month that political interference in police operations led to direct instructions to shut down investigations into high-level criminal activity in KwaZulu-Natal.
Last year, Mkhwanzi told the Mail & Guardian that political interference remained one of the biggest obstacles to reforming the police service, saying the appointment and removal of senior officers was too often driven by party interests rather than operational needs.
During Wednesday’s joint sitting of the committees, parliament’s legal team warned MPs that a full-scale inquiry by the legislature would probably replicate the work of the judicial commission of inquiry established by President Cyril Ramaphosa and chaired by the acting deputy chief justice, Mbuyiseli Madlanga.
Legal adviser Andile Tetyana said parliament still had a constitutional obligation to exercise oversight but should do so through a streamlined, time-bound mechanism. He recommended the formation of an ad hoc committee under rule 253 of the National Assembly, which allows for temporary committees with a defined scope and duration.
“This is about accountability and improving police governance,” Tetyana told MPs.
He said the ad hoc committee could look into several specific issues raised by Mkhwanazi, including the disbanding of the political killings task team, the alleged removal of 121 case dockets by the minister, leadership instability in crime intelligence and the overlap in roles of the South African Police Service and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid).
“Parliament’s control over the executive means influence, not direct power. It remains advice, not command; criticism, not obstruction,” Tetyana said.
The committees considered three options: a full parliamentary inquiry; invoking rule 169 to allow committees to confer; or establishing a new ad hoc committee. The latter was favoured as the least likely to cause jurisdictional overlap and the fact that it could conclude its work within a specific timeframe.
MPs also proposed that any interim reports produced by the presidential commission be made available to parliament to ensure coordination and oversight without interference.
The committees are expected to meet again next week to finalise the draft terms of reference and reporting timelines for the ad hoc committee. A formal recommendation is expected to be tabled in the National Assembly next Wednesday.
This comes as the police service grapples with the continued fallout from Mkhwanazi’s allegations.
On Tuesday, national police commissioner Fannie Masemola confirmed that deputy commissioner for crime detection Shadrack Sibiya had been placed on “special leave” pending an investigation into Mkhwanazi’s allegations, which also implicated him in wrongdoing.
Both Mchunu and Sibiya have denied any wrongdoing.
If the National Assembly approves the recommendation, the ad hoc committee will be empowered to summon witnesses, gather evidence, and deliver a report to parliament.
The art of holding space: Relebogile Mabotja on love, loss and Untied:
Relebogile Mabotja is no stranger to the spotlight. From radio to television, she has built a reputation for her sharp intellect, commanding presence and the gift of making the most delicate conversations feel like home.
But in her latest Showmax series, Untied, in which she is host and associate producer, she shifts the spotlight off herself and onto the experiences of women navigating the messy terrain of separation, heartbreak and healing. The result is raw, riveting and deeply human.
The show features Beverly Steyn, Nonku Williams, Dawn Thandeka King, Mona Monyane, Palesa Madisakwane, Zandi Nhlapo and Sonia Booth.
We meet through a video call. It’s one of those afternoon meetings that feel more like a catch-up with a cousin than a formal interview.
Before we dive into the depths of the show, I have to get this out of the way: the outfits in Untied? Absolutely breathtaking. “Oh, thank you,” she beams. “I wish I could take credit, but there’s an amazing stylist behind that. They made sure everything was perfect.”
But what Untied gets right beyond the aesthetics is its unwavering emotional honesty. It’s not just another heartbreak show. It’s a tribute to resilience. Each episode gives space to one woman’s story of love lost, relationships redefined and the quiet courage it takes to begin again. At the centre of it all is Mabotja, a host who doesn’t posture or pry but gently holds space.
“What draws you to these kinds of stories?” I ask. Her answer is simple: curiosity. “I’m drawn to human experiences. I’ve always been curious about what we go through as people, and love and loss are something we can all relate to.”
She didn’t think she’d be chosen to host the show.
“I pitched for it and didn’t get it,” she laughs. “When they called me, I said, ‘Are you sure? I thought someone who’d gone through what some of these ladies have been through would be more relatable.’ But they were clear. They wanted me. And once it started, I understood why. It was meant to be.”
For Mabotja, this moment aligns with a deeper calling. “I was already intentional about being the go-to person for sensitive conversations. I don’t think of myself as someone who only facilitates divorce stories. I’m drawn to vulnerable, complex stories, ones that ask us to show up fully.”
Watching Untied, you feel the safety in the room. These women, many of whom are telling their stories on camera for the first time, offer their truths freely. I ask how she manages to create such trust. Her answer feels less like technique and more like an ethic of care.
“I ask myself, how would I want someone to ask me a difficult question?” she says. “Some therapists have told me, ‘You’re in your therapy era,’” she chuckles. “But really, I’ve always believed in talk therapy and the power of different kinds of healing. I try to create a judgment-free zone, a space with a listening ear that comes in without assumptions.”
Some of the guests she knows. Many she doesn’t. But she approaches each conversation with radical openness. “If I’m not careful, my own biases could steer the conversation in a direction that’s not true to them. So I have to stay open.”
One episode in particular stayed with her long after the cameras stopped rolling. It hasn’t aired yet, but it involves the death of a child.
“That one touched me in ways I can’t explain,” she says.
“As a parent, you become more sensitive to certain topics. You hear people say, ‘When a mother loses a child, every mother grieves with her.’ And it’s true. Even when I knew beforehand what the episode was about, I could never prepare myself emotionally. You don’t get desensitised to that kind of pain.”
There’s a depth of emotional labour involved in work like this. But Mabotja doesn’t rely on scripts or autopilot. She prepares in a deeply personal way. “The team gives me a brief based on the pre-interviews, but before I sit down, I disconnect from everything else in my life. I have to fully arrive. I don’t work with a script, I rely on active listening. That’s how I stay present.”
In a world of hot takes and hyper-reactions, Untied is refreshingly unhurried. It doesn’t weaponise pain for ratings. It listens. Mabotja was determined to keep it that way. “I told myself from the beginning: I’m not going to cry for the sake of crying or become someone I’m not. I’ve never been a sensationalist. It doesn’t interest me and it doesn’t align with who I am.”
That refusal to perform pain or exploit it for entertainment is what gives Untied its emotional credibility. “Yes, sometimes I can be funny or spicy,” she says, “but I always try to be authentic. If a viewer feels like they’re eavesdropping on a conversation between friends, then I know I’ve done my job.”
Has the show changed her view on love, separation or healing?
She says: “What it’s really shown me is how much we can carry as human beings. We are far more resilient than we realise. Some of these women have gone through so much and come out the other side wiser, more grounded, more whole. It’s not just about love or marriage or divorce. It’s about capacity. About growth.”
I ask what it looks like for her, personally, to be “untied” from something emotionally heavy. She pauses. Her answer is layered.
“My dad always says, ‘It’s okay to pause it.’ When something is overwhelming, we want to fix it now. But sometimes, you just need to put it down for a while. Not because it’s not important, but because you need to protect your own capacity.”
She also speaks about changing the narratives we tell ourselves. “You can talk about your past without letting it define you. I’ve had to untie myself from stories like ‘I’m not worthy’ or ‘I’m not good enough.’ Those stories are not the truth, they’re just the stories I told myself once.”
And finally, she says, it’s about updating the tools you use to survive. “There could be a time where someone who operated from scarcity can now be scared of not having money, for example. But when that phase of your life is over, you can’t keep using the same tools. You’ve got to grow with the problem. That’s part of the untying too.”
Our time runs out, but the conversation feels unfinished in the best possible way, like one you’ll return to later, when you need to. That’s what Untied does. It doesn’t wrap things up in a neat bow. It sits with the mess, the grief, the beauty, and the strength that comes with being human.
“I just hope people see themselves in these stories,” Mabotja says, “and realise they’re not alone.”
SA gets R520 million to buy the twice-a-year anti-HIV jab – but there’s a snag:
South Africa has accepted an offer of just over $ 29 million (about R520 million) from the Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria to buy the twice-a-year anti-HIV jab, lenacapavir, that research shows could help to end Aids in the country, says health department spokesperson, Foster Mohale.
But there’s a snag.
The country isn’t getting extra money from the fund to buy the medicine; it has to use cash from a grant that it has already been awarded and that was cut by 16% in June. Moreover, the fund, at this stage, won’t tell the health department — or any of the other eight countries it has selected for early roll-out — how much they’re paying lenacapavir’s maker, Gilead Sciences, for the product.
Boitumelo Semete-Makokotlela, the chief executive of the country’s medicine regulator, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority, Sahpra, told Bhekisisa it is aiming to have lenacapavir registered in South Africa before the end of the year.
According to the health department’s head of procurement, Khadija Jamaloodien, the lenacapavir funds from the Global Fund will become available in October, when the roll-out period of South Africa’s next grant, known as Grant Cycle 7, kicks in.
But roll-out — probably in early 2026 — can only start once Sahpra has registered the medicine, the country’s essential medicines list committee has reviewed and recommended lenacapavir, procurement processes are in place and health workers and clinics have all they need to hand the drug safely to patients.
Two studies released last year showed the medicine completely protects young women from contracting the virus and works almost as well for men, transgender and gender-nonbinary people.
In fact, a modelling study shows that if between two and four million HIV-negative people in South Africa use the jab every year over the next eight years, the medication could end Aids as a public health threat by 2032.
Ending Aids as a public health threat means reaching a stage where fewer people are getting newly infected with HIV than the number of people with HIV who are dying (increasingly for other reasons than HIV, for example old age).
According to the latest Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and Aids (UNAids) report, which was released last week, 170 000 people got newly infected with HIV in 2024, while there were 53 000 Aids-related deaths.
The Global Fund money for South Africa is, however, not nearly enough to put two to four million people a year in South Africa on the lenacapavir jab (see price explanation below) — and even if it was, the country’s health system won’t be able to roll the medicine out that fast, scientists and policymakers say.
Will the US help to pay for the jab?
The fund’s offer follows the body’s announcement on July 9, that it has the “ambition” to finance enough lenacapavir for two million HIV-negative people — in the low- and middle-income countries it supports — over the next three years. But fulfilling this ambition will depend on whether the governments of wealthy countries give enough money to the fund in its next replenishment round.
The US government’s Aids fund, Pepfar, was originally going to help to pay to roll out lenacapavir in poorer countries.
And, although some activists say it’s still possible for the US administration to come on board (lenacapavir is mentioned in President Donald Trump’s budget proposal for the next financial year, but is understood to be only for pregnant and breastfeeding women), it’s not clear at all how this might happen after the Trump administration’s drastic cuts to funding for HIV projects in countries like South Africa this year.
The Global Fund’s offer, however, is a way to get branded, “bridging” doses from Gilead to South Africa while the world waits for cheaper generics to become available around 2027.
“We now stand at a moment of reckoning and a moment of choice,” Mitchell Warren, the executive director of the international advocacy organisation, Avac, told Bhekisisa at the 13th conference on HIV science in Kigali this week.
“While a lot of the choices over the last six months have been made by an American politician [Donald Trump] who doesn’t care about the pandemic or science generally, our choice is to make decisions based on the science that we all now know. Which is that lenacapavir is our most potent opportunity.”
Countries have to budget just under R600 per dose
Jamaloodien, however, cautions further discussions with the Global Fund and Gilead will be needed about the governance around the pricing of the product.
“We have a transparent pricing system, guided by the Public Finance Management Act. Even if we procure medicine with Global Fund money, we have to follow the same rules that the treasury requires us to follow with tenders, which includes revealing the price at which the medicine is bought,” Jamaloodien says.
In a Global Fund letter sent in early July to the nine early roll-out countries — South Africa, Zimbabwe, Eswatini, Lesotho, Zambia, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria — the fund asked the governments to budget for $ 60 (about R1 076) per patient a year ($ 30, or R576, per six-monthly dose), to buy lenacapavir. But in the document, which Bhekisisa has seen, the fund makes it clear that the amount “reflects the country contribution only, to be used for budgeting purposes, and should not be considered the product price”.
Jamaloodien has confirmed that the health department did receive such a letter.
The letter also states that the gap between the price that the fund pays Gilead per patient a year and the $ 60 that countries will pay for with their Global Fund grants, will be covered by private sector funding, which Hui Yang, the fund’s head of supply operations, confirmed to Bhekisisa will be paid for by a $ 150 million (about R2.68 billion) donation of the UK-based Children’s Investment Fund Foundation to the Global Fund.
Furthermore, says Jamaloodien, South Africa’s letter instructs the country to submit its first order, for planning purposes, by 30 September under an “agreed procurement mechanism”.
Why does Gilead not want to talk about LEN’s price?
Lenacapavir, also referred to as LEN for short, was registered for HIV prevention — also called PrEP — by the US medicines regulator, the Food and Drug Administration on 18 June, and is sold in that country for $ 28 218 (about R505 269) per person a year under the trade name Yeztugo.
The US is the only country in which LEN has been registered so far as PrEP.
For low- and middle-income countries such as South Africa, Gilead said it will have a “not-for-profit” price such as the one they negotiated with the Global Fund, but isn’t allowing the fund to make it public.
Several scientists and activists at the HIV science conference, have, however, told Bhekisisa the rumoured not-for-profit price that Gilead has negotiated with the Global Fund is $ 100 per person a year, and Avac, confirms it in its analysis of events.
But neither Gilead or the Global Fund have confirmed this amount.
If South Africa budgets for $ 60 per person a year, the $ 29.2-million that Global Fund says we can use to buy lenacapavir, translates to putting and keeping about 400 000 people on the medicine over three years (Global Fund grants run for three years at a time).
Gilead argues because the not-for-profit price is based on the actual cost of making lenacapavir, and shipping it to countries, it can’t declare that cost. “Gilead doesn’t publicly disclose manufacturing costs for any of our medications,” Caroline Almeida, Gilead’s head of public affairs, told Bhekisisa in Kigali.
But activists don’t buy this argument.
“Gilead’s secrecy will obstruct civil society activism for lower drug prices and keep prices high in middle-income countries [such as South Africa] where Gilead negotiates prices directly,” the Health Justice Initiative and other activist groups said in a press release last week.
Avac has identified 16 top lenacapavir markets, of which South Africa is — by far — the largest because of the country’s high number of new HIV infections.
The country’s 170 000 new infections in 2024 is 13% of the 1.3 million new HIV infections around the world in 2024.
And research released by Wits RHI on Tuesday in Kigali shows South Africans are open to using the jab: 56% of just over 1 700 participants in a survey in Tshwane, Mthatha and Gqeberha, who were already using public sector HIV prevention services, said they would take a lenacapavir shot.
But for LEN to be affordable, activists argue, Gilead needs to be open about its price.
“Such secrecy undermines the power of buyers to negotiate affordable prices and violates the human rights of all people to access information and lifesaving tools,” activists said in last week’s press release.
Warren concludes: “Pricing transparency has been a long-standing challenge, as companies try to balance their commercial pricing and marketing strategies with their global public health strategies. We clearly need a new model or compact for pricing that helps break the cycle of small thinking and limited impact.”
This story was produced by the Bhekisisa Centre for Health Journalism. Sign up for the newsletter.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
