By Dr Zizamele Cebekhulu-Makhaza, Chairperson, Safer South Africa Foundation (SSAF)
For the last few months, the Madlanga Commission has captured the public’s attention, exposing allegations of serious wrongdoing that have shaken confidence in the very institutions entrusted with enforcing the rule of law. But South Africans have seen damning testimonies and revelations before commissions of inquiry before, only for years to pass while those implicated continue with their lives and criminal cases crawl through the courts.
A notable example is the Zondo Commission, which uncovered corruption on a scale that few could have previously imagined. But in the years since, only three major criminal convictions have flowed directly from the evidence it uncovered. This must not become the fate of the Madlanga Commission.
Exposure is necessary to bring wrongdoing into the open and prevent it from continuing unchecked. But exposure alone is not justice. The Commission has uncovered evidence of criminality and political interference within the criminal justice system. Another report followed by years of procedural delay will only deepen the public’s distrust of these institutions, weakening cooperation with law enforcement and sending criminals the message that the system is too slow or weak to stop them.
We’ve seen disciplinary action taken, charges laid, and arrests made. Now it is time for the next step – prosecution. Accused persons remain entitled to the presumption of innocence until their guilt or innocence is determined in court, but South Africans want to see criminals in orange overalls. Citizens are tired of watching serious cases being postponed and recycled through the system. They want visible proof that the law has real teeth.
In response, the government should begin preparing now for a dedicated Special Tribunal, established through the necessary legislation and given jurisdiction to hear criminal matters arising from the Commission’s work. This must be a properly constituted judicial mechanism supported by dedicated investigators and prosecutors that allows credible cases to proceed without becoming trapped in overloaded court rolls.
The Madlanga Commission already has an advantage over the Zondo Commission in that when urgent evidence emerges, it gets referred for immediate investigation, allowing potential criminal matters to be pursued without waiting for the commission to conclude. However, investigations alone are not enough. There is little value in accelerating the first part of the process if cases must then wait years to be heard.
A dedicated tribunal would ring-fence capacity for these matters. It would allow prosecutors, investigators, and judicial officers to develop the specialised knowledge needed to deal with complex criminal networks and allegations of institutional interference. And most importantly, it would demonstrate that public office does not provide immunity from accountability.
Ultimately, the true measure of Madlanga Commission will be what follows once it has concluded its work – whether allegations were properly investigated, viable cases were prosecuted, and, where guilt was proven, those responsible were sentenced and forced to take accountability for their actions. Arrests without prosecution and sentencing are meaningless. Justice is measured not by the number of people taken into custody, but by the ability of the justice system to secure convictions where the evidence warrants them. Where wrongdoing is established beyond reasonable doubt, those responsible should not be protected by the inevitable delays of a court system under strain. The revelations of the Commission must lead to results.