By Asive Xali, Africa Check
First published on Africa Check
The Madlanga commission of inquiry, chaired by retired deputy chief justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, began its hearings on 17 September 2025. It was established after explosive allegations by a senior police official that a powerful criminal group had compromised South Africa’s law enforcement structures.
Among those implicated is national police minister Senzo Mchunu. Describing the allegations as “extremely serious”, president Cyril Ramaphosa placed Mchunu on leave and announced the commission.
But what exactly is a commission of inquiry? How much power does it really have and what are its limits? Here’s what you need to know.
South Africa’s history of commissions of inquiry
The Madlanga commission is the latest in a long line of inquiries set up in democratic South Africa to deal with issues of serious public concern.
Over the years, commissions have investigated corruption, governance failures and even deadly violence.
Some notable examples include:
- The arms deal inquiry (Seriti commission) – probed allegations of corruption in South Africa’s multibillion-rand arms procurement programme of the late 1990s.
- The Marikana commission – investigated the police killings of 34 striking mineworkers at a platinum mine in the North West province in 2012.
- The Nugent commission – launched in 2018 to examine governance failures and alleged misconduct at the South African Revenue Service.
- The Zondo commission – also established in 2018, investigated widespread corruption and “state capture” involving state-owned enterprises, government officials and private businesses.
What is a commission of inquiry?
A commission of inquiry is a formal, independent investigation, usually appointed by the president.
They are typically set up in exceptional circumstances, when ordinary departmental probes or internal disciplinary processes are inadequate. This may be because the issue is wide-ranging and complex, involves senior officials, or has seriously eroded public trust.
Commissions of inquiry serve as key accountability tools. As legal scholar Lauren Kohn noted in a 2024 article for the Utrecht Law Review: “At the most basic level, they are (meant to be) fact-finding, truth-seeking and truth-revealing, public-confidence-restoring mechanisms.”
Kohn says commissions are uniquely placed to propose ways to tackle corruption and other abuses of power, and “empower the state to act”.
Not all commissions of inquiry are created equal
Commissions can take different shapes, depending on why they are established. Some are fact-finding or investigative, tasked with gathering evidence, testing its accuracy and making recommendations. Others focus on uncovering the truth on matters of public concern, without necessarily advising the executive.
The rules governing each commission also vary. Some operate under strict procedures, for example hearing all sides and ensuring legal representation, while others prioritise transparency and accessibility. Ultimately, a commission’s terms of reference formally define its scope, procedures and powers.
Powers and limits
Commissions established under the Commissions Act of 1947 have significant powers. They can summon witnesses and demand documents and other forms of evidence.
Witnesses testify under oath and failure to comply or providing false information can result in contempt or perjury charges. A high-profile example was former president Jacob Zuma, who was repeatedly summoned to appear before the Zondo commission. His refusal to testify eventually led to his imprisonment in 2021. Yet, as attorney Fawzia Khan told Africa Check, perjury charges were rarely pursued.
Commissions of inquiry are limited in other important ways.
Although their proceedings may resemble a court trial and are often led by judges, they cannot enforce their findings.
“The commission lacks binding power, as it cannot prosecute or enforce compliance with recommendations,” Khan told Africa Check.
They also follow more flexible procedures than courts. Unlike judges, who mainly observe and rule on evidence, commissioners play an active role in the process. They may lead investigations, decide what evidence is admitted and directly question witnesses.
Cost versus effectiveness
Commissions of inquiry are designed to promote transparency and accountability but they also raise tough questions about their cost and effectiveness.
Take the commission of inquiry into allegations of state capture, better known as the Zondo commission after its chair, then deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo. Launched in February 2018 to investigate allegations of large-scale corruption in the public sector, it ran for over three years. Through hundreds of hearings, it found that a small network of individuals siphoned state resources for their own gain.
Across six reports, the commission made hundreds of recommendations for government departments, state-owned enterprises and private companies. But the process came at a steep price: a reported R1-billion (US$57.6-million at current rates).
The presidency later published a response plan with 60 action points, covering criminal prosecutions, asset recovery and corporate accountability. By 29 March 2025, 29 were completed, 14 were still underway and 17 were delayed or required further attention.
But for the public, the value of an inquiry is sometimes questioned when visible consequences, such as arrests, prosecutions or systemic reforms, appear limited or slow. While the presidency’s report details ongoing corruption cases, public debate in South Africa often circles back to the same question: where are the arrests?
“Commissions are expensive and often experience significant delays, diluting urgency,” Khan told Africa Check.
The Madlanga commission, for example, was unable to begin its duties on 1 September 2025 as planned, due to delays in securing infrastructure. Some argue that such setbacks not only undermine public confidence but also weaken the commission’s ability to deliver timely outcomes.
Commissions of inquiry don’t work alone
As commissions of inquiry cannot enforce their own recommendations, arrests and prosecutions depend on other state bodies.
Sabeehah Motala is a senior technical advisor with GIZ South Africa’s transparency programme. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, or GIZ, is Germany’s leading development agency. Motala told Africa Check that a commission was most effective if it uncovered critical information, raised public awareness, and made sound recommendations.
“The Zondo Commission has certainly increased public awareness of state capture,” she said.
Khan agreed, saying that while prosecutions of those implicated in fraudulent activities had been slow, the Zondo inquiry successfully exposed the scale and details of state capture.
Not all commissions of inquiry have had the same impact. The 2011 Seriti commission was criticised for failing to hold anyone accountable. Allegations of cover-ups and ignored evidence followed and in 2019 the high court overturned its findings.
Similarly, the Marikana commission was criticised for its overly formal and procedural approach, with limited engagement with victims. Many families were left dissatisfied with its findings.
Despite such criticism, experts argue that commissions of inquiry remain valuable tools to uncover the truth and make recommendations.
Their real impact, however, depends on government and law enforcement follow-through. Without concrete consequences, commissions risk being criticised as expensive exercises that deliver little accountability.
