The work of the Madlanga commission of inquiry into criminality, political interference and corruption in the criminal justice system is “unprecedented”, says evidence leader Matthew Chaskalson SC.
The commission, which begins public hearings on Wednesday, must investigate “allegations that organised criminal syndicates have infiltrated the South African Police Service and other organs of state involved in policing and public safety”, Chaskalson told a press briefing this week.
Some of the evidence it would gather would be from undercover agents placed inside criminal syndicates by police “in their attempts to break the syndicates. If the identity of those people is disclosed, there is a very real risk they will be killed,” he said.
Chaskalson was explaining why some of the commission’s evidence would likely be heard in secret and may never be made public. The commission, headed by retired justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, was committed to transparency, he said, but it had to prioritise the protection of human life “at all costs”.
The unprecedented and “unique” nature of the commission was repeated several times during Monday’s press briefing, where it was announced that KwaZulu-Natal provincial police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi would be the first witness.
The rules of the inquiry require that those implicated in evidence must be notified that they are a person of interest
Mkhwanazi's bare-all press conference in July precipitated the establishment of the commission, and its terms of reference expressly refer to the “serious concerns” he raised. The terms of reference say the commission was “appointed to investigate and report on the veracity, scope and extent of the allegations”.
The rules of the inquiry require that those implicated in evidence must be notified that they are “a person of interest”. They must be told how they are implicated and, “where appropriate”, must be furnished with the relevant portion of the witness’s statement. Within five calendar days, they must furnish a written statement about the evidence they have been given.
However, there is no automatic right to cross-examine. Madlanga may permit cross-examination if he “deems it necessary and in the best interests of the work of the commission”. A person of interest may also apply to give evidence or call a witness to give evidence on their behalf, but it is up to Madlanga to allow this.
On Monday the commission said it was “in consultation” with Mkhwanazi and would be “throughout the week as well as the early part of next week”. Based on the process set out in the rules, the next step would be notices to “interested persons”.
From Mkhwanazi’s press briefing, these will likely include suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu, deputy national police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya, North West businessman Brown Mogotsi and criminal accused Katiso Molefe and Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala.
These are the people Mkhwanazi expressly named, but his allegations went further. Mkhwanazi detailed a complex “sequence of events” triggered by an investigation by the Gauteng organised crime investigating unit, which then requested assistance from the political killings task team.
“I can confirm before South Africans today that the investigation which these members were involved with in Gauteng has unmasked a syndicate. This syndicate involves, among others, politicians who are serving in parliament. The law enforcement officers include members of the South African Police Service, the metro police and correctional services. They include prosecutors in Gauteng and the judiciary and all these are controlled by the drug cartel and businesspeople in Gauteng,” he alleged.
Mkhwanazi said their investigation caused Mchunu to disband the political killings task team, a claim Mchunu has vehemently denied in court papers.
On Monday the commission was tight-lipped on further witnesses, saying only that it had “simultaneously” been in consultation with a number of further witnesses. However, “based on security considerations”, it would not divulge their details.
Security concerns appeared to be a central preoccupation for the commission. Chaskalson said the “single most significant obstacle” faced by the commission when it began its work was the need for IT systems that could not be hacked, “bearing in mind who we are investigating”.
The procurement took time because it meant very “specific requirements from bidders”, hence the delay in the commission's start. Chaskalson said he was now confident the commission’s systems were safe, but it had taken time to reach that point and investigations could not begin before the IT system was secure.
The commission was also “innovating” in how it approached witness protection, said spokesperson Jeremy Michaels. This was because the commission’s terms of reference covered “some of the very state entities charged with responsibility for witness protection”, he said.
Chief investigator Peter Goss said several measures had been put in place for the protection of witnesses. These included in camera hearings where necessary, securing the premises, and an anonymous and confidential hotline for receiving reports from the public. When it came to the “more intimate form of protection”, he said the commission was obtaining the services of a “highly experienced” service provider.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.