Parallel Probes Blurring Lines of Accountability, Raising Political Temperature

Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu

On July 6, 2025, KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi called a Press Briefing, which left many South Africans tongue-tied as they listened to one blow after another about various illegal activities that Mkhwanazi said were happening. Implicated institutions included the South African Police Service (SAPS), the judiciary, parliament, and individual politicians.

While some accused Mkhwanazi of failing to follow police protocol, many applauded him for opening the eyes of South Africans and for confirming what they had been suspecting all along, that high-ranking officials collude with criminal syndicates.

Since then, there has been commotion in parliament and in the presidency. Parliament set up an Ad hoc committee to investigate these allegations. President Ramaphosa appointed a Commission of Inquiry led by retired Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga. 

Meanwhile, many South Africans have put their weight behind Mkhwanazi, who is dubbed the last hope in a hopeless situation as far as crime and corruption in the country are concerned. They argue that had Mkhwanazi followed protocol, he would have reported his allegations, but nothing would have been done.

Critical questions are worth asking. How did we get to this point? Did Mkhwanazi go to bed, woke up, and decided to call a media briefing, or was his decision a saturation point after many frustrations and after observing the trend? Had the President been decisive in his actions whenever any of his ministers were implicated in wrongdoing, would it have been necessary for things to turn out this way? 

Given our experience with the Zondo Commission, what did we learn from it? Had it been sincere and objective in its operation, would Mkhwanazi have taken this route? What role have our justice system and our judiciary played in instilling confidence among South Africans that indeed the judiciary is independent and acts with impartiality?

Importantly, to what extent did Adv Thuli Madonsela’s famous/notorious “State of Capture” report set the country on a new pedestal?

These questions implore us as a nation to do honest self-introspection instead of crucifying General Mkhwanazi.

Following Mkhwanazi’s salvo, we have two parallel processes. On the one hand, there is a parliamentary Ad hoc committee which has been duly constituted. On the other hand, there is the Madlanga Commission appointed by the president.

Let me hasten to state that both structures are legal. Sec 84(f) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa affords any sitting president the prerogative of “appointing a commission of inquiry.” Moreover, the Commissions Act (No 8 of 1947) grants powers to commissions appointed by the president to investigate any matter of public interest. 

Such commissions have the authority to summon any potential witnesses to appear before them if they fail to do so when they are formally invited. These commissions also have the power to ask for documents that would assist the commission in arriving at a conclusion. 

But commissions do not have prosecutorial powers like courts of law. They only establish facts and make recommendations to the relevant structures. As to why we constantly invoke Sec 84(f) and spend millions of rands instead of subjecting allegations to court processes that have conclusive decisions remains unclear.

While the two parallel processes are legally sound, they have created unnecessary confusion and friction. EFF leader Julius Malema recently made a scathing attack on Mkwanazi. In an unwarranted tough tone, Malema averred that Mkhwanazi “is the one who started this mess.” He went on to say that Mkhwanazi cannot tell the parliamentary committee what to do and what not to do. He pleaded with his colleagues that if Mkhwanazi does not appear before the Ad hoc committee, he must be subpoenaed.

While Malema’s statement about the subpoena was legally correct, his other statement about Mkhwanazi having “started this mess” was unfair, defensive, bullying, ill-informed, and riddled with emotions. Until the investigation has been concluded, there is no basis for anyone to label Mkhwanazi’s allegations as “this mess.” The statement was presumptuous.

As the two parallel processes begin, already there is obfuscation. They both want Mkhwanazi as their first witness. Instead of putting their house in order, Mkhwanazi is being unfairly accused of disrespect. Jeremy Michaels, head of communication and spokesperson for the Madlanga Commission, was indeed correct in stating that the Commission and the Ad hoc committee will interact to ensure that the dates for Mkhwanazi’s appearance before them do not clash.

Flowing from the questions asked earlier in this piece, there is more to Mkhwanazi’s allegations than meets the eye. High-profile cases have disappeared in thin air under very dubious circumstances. Serious allegations have been levelled against cabinet Ministers with no decisive action from the President. 

Various reports have been produced with minimal to no action. These include the Farlam Commission, which investigated the Marikana massacre, the Mufamadi Commission on the State Security Agency (SSA), and the expert panel on the July 2021 unrests. After spending almost R1 billion on the Zondo Commission, the country has very little to celebrate. Some would even be pardoned when they ask if the Commission had the interest of the country at heart or if it was a witch hunt.

Given the country’s current fiscal situation, is it justifiable to appoint one commission after another instead of using already existing state institutions and capacitating them materially, financially, and in terms of human capital? Do we appoint commissions rationally and with honesty, or simply because it is constitutionally permissible? 

In essence, one wonders why some South Africans are so hysterical when reacting to what was said by Mkhwanazi during his historic media briefing. The euphoria surrounding the 121 dockets leaves a lot to be desired. Mixed messaging between Ramaphosa, Masemola, and Cachalia does not instill public confidence. Masemola was right when ordering the return of the files to KZN instead of channelling them to the Madlanga Commission, which has no prosecutorial powers. Justice delayed is justice denied!

Had we done things correctly, we would not be where we are.

* Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.