Long Journey Ahead in the Quest to Eliminate Criminal Justice System Rot

Dr. Reneva Fourie

The Madlanga Commission’s public hearings, which commenced on 17 September, have begun their work with the kind of attention usually reserved for political theatre.

South Africans were glued to live streams, news broadcasts, and social media as the proceedings opened, exposing the alleged rot in the country’s law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, parliament, and the executive.

President Ramaphosa established the Commission after mounting public pressure for an inquiry into KZN Provincial Commissioner Lt-Gen. Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's explosive media briefing on 6 July. The President’s announcement was swift, entrusting the process to Acting Deputy Chief Justice, Mbuyiseli Madlanga, with a mandate that includes determining whether criminal syndicates – including, but not limited to, drug cartels – have infiltrated or exerted undue influence over key state institutions. By design, the Commission is meant to be both a fact-finding exercise and a confidence-restoring intervention.

In its first phase, which involved the formal placing of allegations before the Commission, Mkhwanazi reiterated his earlier statements about political interference in policing and the possible influence of criminal syndicates on a senior cabinet minister.

He spoke of the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team and suggested that interests outside policing had driven the decision. He further drew attention to leaks of sensitive information, abuse of power by parliamentarians, and to dockets that were mishandled, implying that these failures were not simply administrative lapses but the consequences of deliberate political direction. 

These are claims of the highest gravity. Yet gravity alone is never sufficient. Without substantiation, they remain allegations that are striking but still unproven. In particular, he has yet to present substantive corroborating arguments to the public to support the claim that Police Minister Senzo Mchunu was placed under pressure by syndicates. 

The Commission has made it clear that testimony will not be taken at face value. Legal officers attached to the Commission have stressed that allegations of such magnitude must be supported by evidence that can withstand judicial scrutiny.

In its second phase, the Commission will move to a rigorous testing of the evidence, with forensic experts on hand to ensure authenticity and proper chain of custody. Witnesses are encouraged to provide records, communications, and other documentation to back their statements. Where sensitive disclosures arise, closed sessions will be held, with material examined away from public broadcast.

In the third phase of the hearings, key witnesses, including Mkhwanazi, will be offered the opportunity to address any conflicting testimonies and to elucidate on points of contention that have arisen during previous statements. This procedural safeguard aims to ensure that the proceedings are grounded in factual clarity rather than devolving into a mere spectacle of conjecture or unfounded speculation.

Central to the process is the protection of whistleblowers. South Africa has a grim history of individuals who spoke out against corruption and were met with intimidation, threats, and even assassination. Without meaningful protection, few would dare to testify openly. The credibility of the Commission, therefore, depends not only on the reliability of its evidence but also on its ability to create an environment in which truth can be spoken without fear of deadly consequences.

The institutional implications of Mkhwanazi’s allegations are profound. If proven, they would establish that political authority actively compromised investigations into organised crime and politically motivated killings. The damage to the credibility of the police service would be immense.

Reforms, dismissals, and prosecutions could follow, and the reverberations would be felt across the justice system. If the claims are not proven, the reputational damage to the minister, to the police service, and to the Commission itself would be significant. This is the delicate balance that the inquiry must negotiate.

The legal implications are no less stark. Courts require evidence that is precise, corroborated, and capable of standing firm under cross-examination. Unless the Commission can demonstrate that the allegations have been thoroughly tested and verified, it is unlikely to provide prosecutors with usable evidence.

Previous commissions have produced lengthy reports that have gathered dust, while those implicated have continued to enjoy impunity. If the Madlanga Commission manages to break that cycle by producing evidence strong enough for prosecution, it will mark a decisive moment in South Africa’s democratic journey.

The Commission’s early strengths are visible. Its clear procedures and transparent hearings have drawn widespread attention. The live coverage has reinforced its seriousness, but it has also given rise to challenges.

Allegations, once aired, quickly gain traction in public opinion long before they are verified. This creates a dynamic where perception risks outpacing proof. If the Commission does not act swiftly to confirm or dismiss claims, it could find itself losing control of the narrative, with speculation overshadowing careful examination.

Mkhwanazi’s testimony illustrates both the promise and the peril of the process. His account resonates with longstanding concerns about political interference in policing and widespread frustration at the failure of criminal investigations.

But resonance is not evidence. The public deserves more than compelling assertions. It deserves documented records, corroboration, and expert analysis. Until such material is placed before the Commission, what exists is not evidence but potential evidence.

The ultimate measure of the Madlanga Commission’s success will not be the intensity of its hearings or the number of spectators it attracts. It will be the solidity of its findings. Its early steps suggest that it understands this.

Yet vulnerabilities remind us how fragile the balance remains. South Africans are justified in paying close attention, but they should reserve judgment until the painstaking verification process has run its course.

Allegations as severe as those levelled against the entire criminal justice system cannot be left hanging in limbo. Either they will be substantiated with verifiable proof, or they will remain unproven claims that risk reputational harm without delivering justice.

For the Commission, the responsibility is clear. It must ensure that every testimony is protected, every allegation is thoroughly investigated, and every conclusion is based on evidence capable of standing up in court. Only then will it justify the confidence placed in it.

* Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development, and security.

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