Issued by Ismail Joosub on behalf of the FW de Klerk Foundation on 16/09/2025

South Africans have heard many promises about “cleaning up” the state. Few have confronted the problem as directly as the Madlanga Commission. Sparked by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lt Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s alarm that a criminal syndicate has penetrated law enforcement, intelligence, prosecuting authorities and even parts of the bench, the country now faces a stark question: can our institutions still police themselves?

On 21 July 2025, the President appointed the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Criminality, Political Interference and Corruption in the Criminal Justice System under section 84(2)(f) of the Constitution. Chaired by Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, with Advocates Sesi Baloyi SC and Sandile Khumalo SC as fellow commissioners, the panel has a mandate and toolset that match the gravity of the claims: subpoena power, compelled production, coordinated search-and-seizure and, critically, the ability to refer evidence for immediate investigation or prosecution. Reporting deadlines are tight: an initial report at three months, another at six and a final hand-over to Parliament and the Chief Justice.

That pace matters. Commissions that linger lose public confidence and give wrongdoers time to regroup. South Africans, especially younger citizens who have lived through State Capture disclosures, load-shedding and service failures, have little patience for pageantry without consequence. The Madlanga Commission must show movement early and often, not to feed a media cycle but to prove that the state still has a pulse.

However, there have been stumbles even this early in the process. Hearings scheduled for 1 September 2025 were postponed because the Justice Department failed to have core infrastructure in place. The Minister’s swift disciplinary action against senior officials was necessary to this lack of efficiency as administrative lapses cannot be allowed to trip up a process that is explicitly about accountability. The silver lining is that investigators have kept working by interviewing witnesses, securing documents and preparing case files. Momentum is the antidote to scepticism.

The scope of work in a process of this magnitude is formidable. At minimum, the Commission will examine evidence of syndicate influence across SAPS (including Crime Intelligence and the Political Killings Task Team), all three Gauteng metro police departments, the NPA, the State Security Agency, Correctional Services, court administration and the judiciary. That list reads like a cross-section of the rule of law. Any conclusion that these organs have been compromised must be matched by a remedy that can withstand political pressure and criminal pushback.

But, we do not start from a blank slate. Not too long ago, the Zondo Commission exposed how networks of power warped state institutions and recommended extensive prosecutions and systemic fixes. The slow follow-through since then is a caution: truth-telling without enforcement erodes trust. The Nugent Commission at SARS is the counterexample; clear interim findings led to decisive action and institutional recovery. The Khampepe inquiry into the failure to prosecute apartheid-era TRC cases reminds us that justice deferred becomes justice denied and that burying files buys time for perpetrators, not victims. The lesson for Madlanga is simply to set out facts crisply, name decision-makers and queue executable actions. Then insist, relentlessly, that they are executed.

What, concretely, should success look like?

First, protect the evidence and the witnesses. The transfer of the 121 political-killing dockets to the Commission for integrity checks was a positive step. That approach must be extended to mirror and seal digital case files, put tamper-evident chains of custody in place and create a protected disclosure channel for officials who can show how dockets were siphoned, investigations stalled, or prosecutors leaned on. Without this, the inquiry risks chasing shadows.

Second, publish the roadmap. A weekly operations bulletin must be published. While sensitivity of information is still critical, real transparency deters interference and allows Parliament, civil society and the public to track delivery.

Third, enforce time-bound interim action. Where evidence justifies it, the Commission should recommend immediate suspensions, vetting and internal disciplinary steps for named officials; compulsory lifestyle audits and asset-freezes for those implicated; and urgent directives to secure surveillance, procurement and informant databases that are vulnerable to compromise. If laws frustrate urgent steps, the President and Cabinet should table targeted amendments within weeks, not months.

Fourth, make Parliament earn its oversight stripes. The Commission’s interim reports should come with draft resolutions for the National Assembly to adopt within 14 days: timelines for the executive, reporting duties for implicated entities and a standing multi-party committee to track implementation. Democracy is not served if findings are tabled and then disappear into the ether.

Why insist on this level of discipline? Because the costs of failure are immediate and generational. When political hits go unpunished, communities learn to fear speaking up. When drug cartels can buy case outcomes, township economies are held hostage. When prosecutors are pressured and judges are smeared, honest officials retreat and talent drains away. For young South Africans deciding whether to build a life here, the credibility of the justice system shapes whether merit can rise and whether safety is real.

Some will argue that another commission simply repeats the past. The difference lies in execution. Madlanga’s team has the power to trigger criminal processes now, the benefit of Zondo’s blueprint and the clarity of Nugent’s example. It also has a public that is more informed, more connected and less forgiving of excuses. That is an opportunity as much as a constraint.

This is a moment to restore the simple civic bargain: if you are honest, the state protects you; if you are corrupt, the state prosecutes you. The Constitution points the way. Section 1 binds us to the rule of law and the Bill of Rights presumes a state that can secure life, dignity and freedom. The Madlanga Commission can help realign practice with principle if the country insists on results.

So here is a straightforward test the public can apply in the coming weeks:

• Are hearings live-streamed and schedules published?
• Are interim referrals resulting in visible suspensions, arrests or preserved assets?
• Are Parliament and oversight bodies voting on, and enforcing, deadlines?
• Are whistle-blowers protected and witnesses heard without fear?

If the answers trend “yes”, confidence will build. If they stall, we will know early enough to demand course correction.

South Africans have seen the damage that organised criminality and political interference can do. We have also seen institutions recover with the right leadership, tools and pressure. The Madlanga Commission gives the country a chance to choose that recovery for the sake of today’s communities and tomorrow’s youth. Let’s measure it by outcomes, back it when it is brave and push it when it hesitates.

The rule of law cannot wait.