CORNELIUS MONAMA | Fundamental flaw in comparing Zondo and Madlanga commissions

South Africans have every right to debate the effectiveness of commissions of inquiry. But meaningful scrutiny must be grounded in logic, evidence and context, not on false equivalence.

A curious narrative has recently emerged in public discourse. The Madlanga commission is increasingly being compared with the judicial commission of inquiry into allegations of state capture, chaired by chief justice Raymond Zondo. The implication is that because the Madlanga commission appears to be producing more immediate investigative momentum, dramatic arrests and highly publicised prosecutions, the Zondo commission was somehow slow, ineffective, or lacking in impact.

This comparison is fundamentally flawed. It compares two commissions established for different purposes, operating under different terms of reference, equipped with different institutional resources and expected to deliver different outcomes. It violates perhaps the most basic principle of sound analysis: to compare like with like.

The Zondo commission was never intended to investigate a single institution. It was tasked with exposing the architecture of state capture across the entire South African state.

It investigated Eskom, Transnet, Denel, South African Airways, Prasa, Bosasa, Sars, the intelligence services, cabinet decision-making and procurement systems across government. It sought to find how organised corruption penetrated and compromised the machinery of the democratic state.

By contrast, the Madlanga commission has a far narrower mandate, focusing only on allegations of criminality and institutional failures within the law-enforcement environment. That is an immensely important assignment. But it is not comparable to the task that was before the Zondo commission.

Unlike the Madlanga commission, the Zondo commission did not operate alongside a dedicated police task team mandated to execute arrests

Justice Zondo conducted the inquiry as the sole commissioner, while justice Madlanga serves alongside two additional commissioners. The Zondo commission reconstructed years of corruption primarily through procurement records, financial transactions, official correspondence and extensive e-mail exchanges across hundreds of institutions.

By comparison, the Madlanga commission has benefited from the prevalence of encrypted messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, which often provide immediate chronological records of communications. Technological developments naturally influence the pace and character of investigations. Unlike the Madlanga commission, the Zondo commission did not operate alongside a dedicated police task team mandated to execute arrests.

An honest examination of the historical record demonstrates that the Zondo commission delivered substantial returns. When measured against financial recoveries, prosecutions, legislative amendments and institutional reforms, the narrative that it achieved little collapses under the weight of evidence.

Over four years, more than 300 witnesses testified under oath, and thousands of documents were analysed. No previous commission in democratic South Africa has attempted an investigation of comparable breadth or complexity.

Its work directly informed investigations by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), resulting in more than 200 criminal investigation referrals. Former MP Vincent Smith is already serving a prison sentence arising from matters linked to evidence uncovered during the inquiry. More than 50 individuals and companies are currently before the courts, while numerous additional investigations remain under way.

Financial recoveries have been equally significant. The Special Investigating Unit, together with the Asset Forfeiture Unit and Sars, has recovered or returned more than R17bn linked to state capture-era corruption.

Against an estimated commission cost of approximately R1bn, recoveries alone have exceeded expenditure many times over. Beyond financial recovery, the commission reshaped South Africa’s anti-corruption architecture. It exposed weaknesses in the state’s investigative capacity, contributing directly to the establishment of the permanent Investigating Directorate Against Corruption within the NPA.

The first rule of honest analysis is simple: compare apples with apples. By that standard alone, the case against the Zondo commission collapses

These are precisely the outcomes commissions of inquiry are intended to produce. Their value cannot be measured by the number of televised arrests or dramatic prosecutions.

Unfortunately, the government itself bears some responsibility for allowing misleading narratives to flourish. Progress in prosecutions, asset recovery, legislative reform and institutional renewal has not been communicated consistently or coherently. That communication vacuum has enabled detractors to peddle the falsehood that “nothing happened” after the commission concluded its work. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Zondo commission did not merely investigate corruption. It documented how constitutional governance itself came under systematic assault and provided South Africa with a roadmap for rebuilding institutional integrity.

Equally, the Madlanga commission is making significant and commendable progress within its own terms of reference. Every credible commission that advances accountability deserves public support. But supporting one commission should never require discrediting another through intellectually dishonest comparisons.

Commissions of inquiry should be judged against the mandates they were given, the constitutional responsibilities they were entrusted to fulfil and the institutional environments within which they operated, not against politically convenient narratives or superficial comparisons.

History will judge the Zondo commission by the enduring legacy it leaves behind in the form of billions of rands recovered, prosecutions under way, institutions strengthened, legislation reformed and an authoritative historical record that exposed the mechanics of state capture.

The first rule of honest analysis is simple: compare apples with apples. By that standard alone, the case against the Zondo commission collapses.

• Monama is a communication specialist. He writes in his personal capacity