MK Party MK David Skosana has been found guilty by the Ethics Committee for violating the code of conduct for parliamentarians.
Image: Supplied / Facebook
MK Party MP David Skosana faces the prospect of his salary being docked twice and being suspended for 15 days in Parliament for violating the code of conduct for parliamentarians.
The Ethics Committee released its findings on Wednesday after it investigated Skosana’s threats to a journalist and his failure to declare his directorship to a company doing business with the State.
Committee co-chairpersons Nonkosi Mvana and Joseph Britz said Newzroom Afrika Executive Director for Governance Risk, Compliance and Legal, Thato Thalakga, lodged a complaint on behalf of reporter Nasiphi Same.
Thalakga said Same was assigned to cover and report on the proceedings of the Ad Hoc Committee established to investigate allegations made by Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
In August 2025, the broadcaster received a distressed phone call from Same, complaining that Skosana approached her after conducting an interview with EFF leader Julius Malema inside the committee room.
Three MK Party members, led by Skosana, allegedly shouted at her aggressively, demanding to know why she did not interview them as the “official opposition”.
Although the reporter explained that the interview with Malema was unrelated to the Ad Hoc Committee, she offered the party an interview, but this was declined.
When Same interviewed ActionSA MP Dereleen James, Skosana made gestures at her and then followed her, shouting, accusing Newzroom Africa of having an agenda.
It was alleged that Ad Hoc Committee Chairperson, Soviet Lekganyane, physically stepped in and dragged Skosana away from Same.
“She stated that as the member was dragged away, he shouted at the reporter, claiming that he knew her bosses at Newzroom Afrika and threatening to lay a complaint against the reporter (thus threatening her job).”
In his response, Skosana confirmed inquiring why he was not interviewed as a member of the official opposition.
However, he claimed that the Malema interview had continued addressing questions regarding the Ad Hoc Committee.
Skosana confirmed he had shown frustration when Same interviewed another member from the committee, and the interview offer was declined to protest his party’s dissatisfaction with Same’s conduct.
“He states that at no point during the altercation between him and the reporter did he intend or attempt to physically violate her, nor did he intend to undermine her safety on the premises (Parliament),” reads the report.
Skosana denied that Lekganyane had to physically drag him away from Same, saying he asked him to let the matter go.
He said his statement regarding “knowing her bosses” was not intended to mean that he had personal relations with them and threatened her employment.
Mvana and Britz said the committee held the view that Skosana came across in an intimidating and threatening manner to Same.
“If this was not the case, the chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee would not have intervened,” said the co-chairpersons.
They said it would be reasonable to conclude that his statement about knowing her “bosses” was meant as a threat of intimidation towards a female reporter.
The committee found that Skosana did not place the public interests above his own interests.
“Furthermore, in the performance of his duties and responsibilities, he was not committed to the eradication of all forms of discrimination, including discrimination against women.”
The committee recommended that Skosana be reprimanded, suspended for 15 days, and his salary and allowances reduced for 15 days.
Meanwhile, the committee wants Skosana to be slapped with another reprimand and a separate fine of R15,000 for being a director of a company that was doing business with the State and failed to disclose his directorship in UVO Communication in the public part of the register of interests.
In his response to the committee, Skosana stated that his failure to declare was not done in bad faith, and that there was no intention to conceal information.
He had stated that the business had been inactive since 2019, and that he did not receive any remuneration, benefit, or financial gain from the company, nor did he benefit as the co-director.
“He stated that he intends to resign as a director.”
The committee found his excuse questionable, that his non-disclosure in the public disclosure was not done in bad faith, and that there was no intention to conceal any information.
“The reality is that the member disclosed the details in the confidential part, but not the public part. This shows that the member knew that the information had to be disclosed and elected not to place it in the public part. This shows the intention to conceal information.”
mayibongwe.maqhina@inl.co.za