A request by evidence leaders, led by advocate Ismail Jamie, to bring in witnesses sparked opposition from Phiyega’s representative, advocate William Mokhari.
Phiyega’s team argued that bringing in new witnesses was tantamount to broadening the terms of reference and scope of the inquiry and should not be allowed by board chairman, Judge Neels Claassen.
“The manner in which the evidence leaders have presented their argument to you (Judge Claassen) is that you must make your ruling in the abstract. That they are entitled to call witnesses. But it can’t be,” Mokhari argued.
“They must be able to say ‘we have the evidence of the following people and we are asking for a ruling from you whether we can adduce that evidence because there is an objection to that’. They are not doing that.”
