Thulani Magagula, Ipid investigator and Madlanga Commission of Inquiry witness.
Image: Oupa Mokoena / Independent Newspapers
Alarming testimonies from the Madlanga Commission reveal the harsh realities of police accountability in SA, as the Ipid battles systemic failures and operational challenges that threaten public safety, writes Professor Nirmala Gopal
IN ANY thriving constitutional democracy, law enforcement requires robust accountability mechanisms. Policing grants the state significant authority over citizens' lives, liberties and dignity. If this authority is exercised without adequate oversight, the consequences can be devastating not only for individual victims, but also for the integrity of the entire criminal justice system.
South Africa's journey, shaped by a complex and painful legacy of politicised policing and systemic abuse, highlights the urgent need for this balance.
The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) was established within this context, marking the state's recognition that policing cannot rely solely on self-regulation, especially in a society still facing deep inequalities, high levels of violent crime, and fragile police-community relations. While Ipid's mandate is commendable and constitutionally grounded, its daily operations face numerous structural, political and operational challenges that threaten its effectiveness.
Since the Ipid Act came into force in 2012, the directorate has been positioned as an independent oversight body responsible for investigating serious police-related criminality. This includes deaths in custody, deaths resulting from police action, discharge of official firearms, allegations of rape involving police officers, torture, assault, and selected corruption cases. This focused mandate aligns with international best practices, as independent oversight is most effective when concentrating on severe harm and violations of fundamental rights.
Such cases are central to policing; they affect the very legitimacy of democracy.
Research shows that when police are seen as abusive or unaccountable, public co-operation diminishes, crime reporting declines, and informal or violent justice may take root. Consequently, the Ipid's work is not just reactive or punitive; it serves a preventive role that contributes to long-term social stability and crime control. However, legislative independence does not ensure practical autonomy. One of the Ipid's most significant challenges is its institutional vulnerability. Despite its critical constitutional role, the Ipid remains financially and administratively dependent on the executive branch.
Chronic budget constraints have hindered its ability to hire and retain skilled investigators, forensic specialists, and legal experts. High investigator-to-case ratios, inadequate provincial capacity, and limited access to specialised resources put immense pressure on an institution tasked with investigating complex and sensitive cases. From a criminological perspective, under-resourced oversight bodies risk becoming symbolic rather than substantive. When investigations are delayed or inadequately supported, accountability loses its deterrent effect.
Misconduct is not necessarily prevented; it is merely addressed slowly and often inconclusively. This situation fosters institutional fatigue and public disillusionment. Additionally, non-compliance and obstruction by police members pose significant issues. While the Ipid Act legally mandates members of the SAPS and metro police services to report specified incidents promptly and fully co-operate with investigations, this obligation is often not met.
Delays in reporting deaths in custody, missing dockets, unavailability of officers, and reluctance to provide affidavits or participate in identification parades are persistent obstacles. In criminology, this resistance to oversight often reflects a defensive police culture prioritising institutional protection over transparency. When co-operation becomes conditional, it erodes the quality of investigations and the credibility of policing as a profession committed to ethical conduct. Perhaps the most damaging challenge for the Ipid is the implementation gap between its recommendations and actual disciplinary outcomes.
Although the national commissioner is legally required to act on the Ipid's findings, initiating disciplinary proceedings, reporting progress, and communicating outcomes, these processes are frequently slow, inconsistently applied, or inconclusive. Officers implicated in serious misconduct may remain on active duty for extended periods, sometimes for years, while cases stagnate. This implementation gap is not theoretical.
Recent testimony at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has exposed the devastating real-world consequences of these systemic failures. Thulani Magagula, assistant director of investigations at the Ipid, testified in February about conditions that starkly illustrate the directorate's resource crisis. Magagula revealed that as a supervisor of five investigators in Ekurhuleni, he was forced to handle 727 cases as of December last year. This caseload is approximately four to seven times higher than he considers professionally manageable, stating that each Ipid official should ideally handle between 100 and 200 cases.
The consequences of this overwhelming caseload extend beyond delayed paperwork. They translate directly into failed accountability and ongoing harm to the public. Magagula's testimony detailed an alarming example: an Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality Police Department (EMPD) officer, Adam Cummings, who was a serial rapist of minor children, remained on active duty throughout his entire criminal trial. Despite clear evidence provided by the Ipid, the officer continued working and committing crimes against children. His dismissal came only after his criminal conviction resulted in multiple life sentences, not because of internal disciplinary processes.
This case reveals a troubling pattern where officers accused of sexual abuse remain in service despite the Ipid providing sufficient evidence for action.
The Madlanga Commission testimony further exposed how the EMPD management possessed adequate material to act independently against implicated officers, but failed to do so. In one case involving the alleged theft of a truck and cargo valued at over R1 million in February 2023, the Ipid completed its investigation and referred the matter to the EMPD. The implicated officers, Adrian McKenzie and Kasher Lee-Stols, along with private security official Etienne van der Walt, have faced no internal discipline three years later, despite the EMPD having sufficient evidence to launch its own internal investigation and disciplinary proceedings.
Magagula's colleague, senior IPID investigator Nomsa Masuku, testified that she was responsible for more than 400 cases, echoing the same capacity crisis. She emphasised a critical point often misunderstood by those who questioned the Ipid's effectiveness: the directorate was not corrupt but catastrophically overworked. Masuku stated plainly that investigations proceeded slowly, not because of deliberate obstruction but because individual investigators could not reasonably manage hundreds of complex cases simultaneously.
When a single investigator carries 400 or 700 cases, each requiring detailed evidence gathering, witness protection, legal documentation, and co-ordination with prosecutors, the mathematical impossibility of timely completion becomes evident. The testimony also highlighted the dangers the Ipid investigators faced when pursuing cases against police officers.
Masuku revealed that during the investigation into the murder of Emmanuel Mbense in April 2022, her car was shot at. In a previous investigation against a police officer, her son was shot and sustained injuries that left him reliant on a wheelchair. These attacks on investigators and their families create an environment where personal safety competes with professional duty. Masuku withheld a critical affidavit from security company owner Marius van der Merwe for three years, not to obstruct justice but to protect him as a witness.
Van der Merwe, identified as Witness D, was later murdered before he could testify publicly about police involvement in Mbense's killing. Witness intimidation and disappearance represent another dimension of the Ipid's operational challenges. Magagula testified that in ongoing investigations, some witnesses had disappeared entirely, while others refused to come forward because they feared the police.
One potential witness told him directly: "Magagula, you know the police will kill me, and I don't want to be in that position."
Magagula's response, offering witness protection and other resources, highlights both Ipid's attempts to fulfil its mandate and the profound trust deficit that exists when those meant to provide safety are the subjects of investigation.
The blue lights controversy involving suspended EMPD acting chief Julius Mkhwanazi further demonstrates how obstruction manifests in practice. When social media allegations emerged in 2013 about the unauthorised installation of blue lights on civilian vehicles allegedly linked to crime figure Vusimuzi "Cat" Matlala, the EMPD senior officers reported the matter to the Ipid. A formal investigation was opened, yet years later, the matter remained unresolved through internal EMPD processes. This pattern, in which the Ipid conducts investigations and refers findings to police departments, but police departments fail to act on their own members, perpetuates a culture of impunity.
From a criminological standpoint, these concrete examples validate the theoretical concerns outlined earlier in this report. When investigators handle seven times their optimal caseload, when serial offenders remain on duty despite evidence, when witnesses are murdered or terrified into silence, and when departments refuse to discipline officers despite having sufficient evidence, the entire accountability framework collapses.
The deterrent effect of oversight evaporates when offending officers observe their colleagues facing no meaningful consequences for serious misconduct. The Madlanga Commission testimony reveals that Ipid's challenges are not abstract policy questions, but urgent operational realities affecting public safety daily.
Acting Minister of Police Firoz Cachalia described the commission as a "reset moment" for the country, acknowledging that testimony has begun to expose the scale of institutional decay. What emerges from these hearings is not merely individual corruption, but systemic failure across multiple levels: investigative capacity is insufficient, police co-operation is inconsistent, disciplinary processes are dormant, and those who attempt to hold power accountable face violence and intimidation.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.