Closing arguments at the Claassen board of inquiry will now be heard in June after evidence leaders and suspended national police commissioner Riah Phiyega’s defence team announced on Friday that they will not be calling further witnesses.

Only two witnesses, Captain Monwabisi Ntlati and former brigadier Lindela Mashigo, testified during the inquiry this week. Four other witnesses have only presented affidavits to the inquiry. The evidence leaders initially indicated that they had about 14 witnesses.

“Our position is that, as evidence leaders, we do not intend at this point to call further witnesses. That has been our case against General Phiyega. That is our case,” evidence leader, advocate Ismail Jamie SC, said in Pretoria.

Inquiry chairman, Judge Neels Claassen, inquired if Phiyega would want to call witnesses to testify on her behalf.

Advocate William Mokhari SC, for Phiyega responded: “In the light that evidence leaders have closed their case, now it is our case, which we also close”.

The inquiry will resume on June 1 with closing arguments which has been set down for three days. Thereafter, Claassen will compile and submit a report to President Jacob Zuma.

Earlier on Friday, Mokhari cross-examined Mashigo regarding the media statements issued after the August 16, 2012 shootings which left 34 protesting miners dead at Marikana, near Rustenburg.

Mokhari asserted that Mashigo had concealed “relevant information” to the previous inquiry chaired by retired Judge Ian Farlam. That inquiry was probing the circumstances around the death of the 34 mineworkers and the 10 people, including two police officers, who had also been killed at Marikana.

“Mr Mashigo, I put it to you that you concealed to the Farlam Commission, relevant information which, had you placed it before Farlam, he possibly would have found differently. You had information about the changes that you made (to the SAPS media release), the changes that you say the national commissioner made and that you were the co-compiler (of the media release issued on August 17, 2012),” said Mokhari.

“That was a material concealment to the (Farlam) Commission.”

Mashigo responded: “Perhaps we should look at the changes I made in conjunction with Captain (Dennis) Adriao, in the presence of the senior officers which are the national commissioner and the provincial commissioners . As far as I can recall, Colonel (Duncan) Scott was also present”.

“The changes that Dennis and I made were to copy and paste the document onto a template that had a SAPS logo, the letterhead. Those senior officers were standing next to us. In any briefing, there should be an introduction. I introduced the statement referring to how saddening were the (Marikana) incidents as they unfolded. Those are the changes I made. There was further contribution from my seniors that we should also add the mandate of the police (into the press statement).”

Mokhari sought clarity on why Mashigo did not inform the Farlam Commission that he had also made changes to the press release.

“You didn’t say that you made changes, together with Adriao, and the national commissioner made further changes. You knew, in this affidavit that you were deposed a year after Marikana, that you were deposing the affidavit to assist the Farlam Commission. You did not do that and three years later, that Commission has made findings also in respect of the very press statement which was read out by the national commissioner (on August 17, 2012),” said Mokhari.

“Only when this board of inquiry is set up, on the day that it sits for the first time, we get an affidavit from you saying the national commissioner made further changes. Can you explain why?”

Mashigo said he had been informed that he was going to testify at the Farlam Commission, and hoped to present his evidence – even though he did not get the chance to testify.

On Thursday, Mashigo told the Claassen Inquiry that he made changes to the SAPS media statement issued after the Marikana shooting at the insistence of Phiyega.

“The changes came about through dictation by the national commissioner. The main changes were on the statement. The changes came about when we were putting together a media statement which was released on August 17 (2012),” said Mashigo.

“They (the alterations) were dictated to by the national commissioner.”

Evidence leader Ismail Jamie asked Mashigo to narrate to the inquiry which changes were made to the police statement on the shooting dead of 34 protesting mineworkers at Lonmin Mine in Marikana, near Rustenburg.

“To which changes are you referring to, when you say ‘the national commissioner further dictated changes which I effected to the documents on my laptop?’” Jamie asked.

Mashigo said Phiyega dictated to him that the Marikana incidents should not be relayed to the media, at a briefing on August 17, 2012, as two scenes, but rather a single occurrence in which the miners were shot and killed.

“The changes that were dictated … the first is not differentiating between the two scenes (where the miners were shot). As you will see in the media statement, that was not captured. There was no scene 1 and scene 2,” said Mashigo.

“The second change that I had to effect was the ‘systematical withdrawal’ of the police. That too was dictated to me by the national commissioner.”

Claassen sought clarity on what the systematic withdrawal of police meant. Jamie read out a sentence on the final police statement which indicated that “police retreated systematically and were forced to utilise maximum force to defend themselves”.

Jamie asked Mashigo to explain how that statement was coined into the police statement.

Mashigo responded: “That is the line I’m referring to. Besides not mentioning or differentiating the two scenes, that is a line that was dictated to me by the national commissioner when we were compiling that media statement.”

Jamie also read out another line in the SAPS statement: “The militant group stormed towards the police firing shots and wielding dangerous weapons.” He said that that sentence had been altered from the previous SAPS statement prepared for the press briefing.

A composed Mashigo responded: “That too is a line that was suggested that it should be in the media statement, by the national commissioner.”

Phiyega, flanked by lawyers, looked attentively as Mashigo outlined his evidence. She too was taking notes.

Mashigo said Phiyega dictated the changes inside a Lonmin Mine building, before the press briefing, a day after police shot and killed the 34 protesting workers.

In September, President Jacob Zuma announced that he had set up the Claassen-led board of inquiry into Phiyega’s fitness to hold office.

Claasen chairs the three-member board, assisted by advocates Bernard Khuzwayo and Anusha Rawjee.

Phiyega’s actions in mid-August, 2012, when 34 miners were killed during a violent strike at the Lonmin mine in the North West in what is believed to be the biggest loss of life in a single police operation in post-apartheid South Africa, was heavily criticised by a commission of inquiry led by retired Judge Ian Farlam.

In June last year, Zuma released the report of the Farlam Commission. It recommended the board of inquiry into Phiyega’s fitness to hold office after finding fault with the police’s “tactical” plan to deal with the striking miners.

The Farlam Commission also found the police had misled it about its plans on the day of the deadly shootings.

The terms of reference of the Claassen Inquiry include investigating whether Phiyega, acting with others in the South African Police Service leadership structures, “misled the Commission” by hiding the fact that they had authorised the “tactical option” during a management meeting on the day before the killings.

The Claassen Inquiry is also investigating whether Phiyega, while taking the decision to go the tactical route, could have foreseen the “tragic and catastrophic consequences which ensued”.