After a year of Madlanga, the public needs a record of what changed

A commission hearing can produce a memorable day of testimony. Restoring an institution requires a much longer sequence of less visible decisions.

As Madlanga approaches a year since its first public hearings on 17 September 2025, that sequence deserves more attention. SABC’s anniversary coverage describes more than a hundred witnesses in the inquiry into criminality and political interference in the justice system, including evidence concerning the disbanding of the Political Killings Task Team.

The public record is substantial. The next test is whether the institutions responsible for acting on it can show a clear account of their work.

What an ordinary complainant needs

Most people encounter the justice system through a particular incident. They need a statement taken properly, evidence preserved, communication about progress and an investigator able to work without interference.

Those needs can sound almost modest beside allegations about powerful networks. They are the point of the system. If influence protects a suspect, compromises evidence or removes capable investigators, the failure eventually reaches somebody whose case cannot proceed as it should.

Public hearings can expose conduct that an individual complainant could never establish alone. They can also show how apparently separate decisions connect: an appointment, a contract, a transfer, an instruction or the closure of a unit.

That is one of the reasons a commission can matter. It creates a forum in which those connections can be examined publicly and witnesses can be questioned about their accounts.

The stage after testimony

Evidence given at a hearing still has to be assessed. Conflicting accounts may need to be tested against documents or other witnesses. Criminal allegations require their own legal process. None of that work can be replaced by the audience’s confidence that a particular person sounded persuasive.

The practical response is a record that shows which stage each issue has reached. A referral, an investigation, a disciplinary process and a completed prosecution are different forms of progress. Recording them clearly makes it possible to see movement without pretending the outcome is already known.

It also prevents a familiar form of public confusion. An announcement that a matter has been referred can be remembered months later as though the underlying problem was resolved. A visible status record would make that misunderstanding harder to sustain.

What government should publish

For recommendations and actions that can lawfully be disclosed, the public should be able to see five things: what was recommended, which office is responsible, what decision was taken, the date of the next action and what has actually been completed.

That need not become an enormous new report. A concise register, updated regularly, could serve the purpose if its entries were specific and connected to the underlying documents.

For example, a recommendation to strengthen a control should eventually lead to a description of the changed control and evidence that it is being used. A recommendation concerning an appointment should lead to an identifiable decision. A referral should have an acknowledged destination and a status that can be updated within the limits of the relevant process.

Where disclosure would prejudice legitimate work, the limitation should be explained. A stated restriction is more useful than silence that can mean anything from an active investigation to a forgotten file.

Repair has to reach the working system

The most important consequences may be less dramatic than the hearings that prompted them. A better process for protecting evidence, a properly recorded instruction or a functioning route for reporting interference can change the conditions under which officials do their jobs.

A leadership change may be necessary. It should be followed by a clear account of the work that the replacement is expected to complete. Otherwise the public is left to infer institutional improvement from the arrival of a new name.

The same applies to money. If a procurement problem is identified, the response should address the affected arrangement and the controls that allowed it. A promise to review policy offers little reassurance until the review produces an implemented change.

Following the record without living inside the hearing

Readers should not have to watch every hour of evidence to understand the commission’s significance. A useful publication can follow a few important matters from testimony through assessment and action, returning to them when the status changes.

That is more demanding than repeating each day’s strongest allegation. It requires memory. It also provides a better service to an audience that wants to know whether the country’s institutions are becoming more capable or merely more frequently discussed.

Madlanga has already created a public space in which serious allegations can be examined. The authorities now need to make the next part of the story traceable. A complainant waiting for a case to move has an interest in the hearing room, but an even greater interest in what finally changes at the desk handling the file.

www.thepeoplesa.com