Since 1994 South Africa has relied heavily on commissions of inquiry to probe scandals that stain public life.
Most recently, with the Zondo Commission on State Capture, the pattern is familiar: long hearings, detailed reports, and high public expectations. What is less familiar is real accountability.
Even Zondo’s reports have so far produced limited prosecutions. The result is a sense that commissions are only good at exposing rot but fail to deliver consequence management. Most commissions' findings are not legally binding.
The ongoing Madlanga Commission of Inquiry into allegations of political interference in policing and the links between politicians, law enforcement and organised crime enters this contested terrain. Its hearings have already been marked by stark testimony from KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
What is striking is the way mainstream media have responded. Testimony at the Zondo Commission was often treated as gospel, particularly when it implicated then-president Jacob Zuma and his allies. With Mkhwanazi, however, there appears to be a more sceptical framing, with his claims questioned and framed as baseless. This uneven reception raises difficult questions.
Mkhwanazi was the mainstream media's darling before he touched the name of DA member of parliament Dianne Kohler-Barnard, whom he alleges broke the law and incited an attack against the Crime Intelligence unit.
Suddenly many mainstream media outlets and podcasts are dismissive of his testimony. The DA's stance is strange too, especially for a party that has called for the removals and suspensions of numerous ministers merely implicated in allegations. Yet with Kohler-Barnard, the DA leader John Steenhuisen is adamant that she's going nowhere.
Ultimately, the credibility of the Madlanga Commission will depend less on the hearings than on what follows. South Africans have become accustomed to commissions that drag and expend millions of rand, but the results fail to match the scale of the spending.