Day one of the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry into Criminality, Political Interference and Corruption within South Africa’s criminal justice system closed at about 4pm on Tuesday at the Bridgette Mabandla Justice College in Pretoria after almost six hours of testimony from KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
Mkhwanazi began his evidence just after 10:30 and, following a lunch adjournment, resumed at 14:00. His testimony set the tone for what many observers believe may be a fraught and revealing inquiry: he described a politically sensitive “task team” whose work, he said, was central to investigations into high-level criminality, and he accused senior political figures of unduly influencing the team’s disbandment.
At the heart of the day’s disclosures was Mkhwanazi’s claim — first made publicly in a July 6 press briefing — that suspended Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu had links to criminal syndicates and that General Shadrack Sibiya had also been implicated.
Mkhwanazi told the commission he believed Mchunu was influenced into the decision to disband the political task team (the provincial task team), a move he described as “wrong” and made without a formal briefing on the unit’s work.
“For a minister to reach this conclusion… worse because the minister has not received a formal briefing on the work that the team is doing. To me it was a wrong conclusion that the minister has reached, which is why it became a matter of concern,” Mkhwanazi told commissioners.
When pressed on whether he had evidence to substantiate his allegation of corruption against Mchunu, the commissioner insisted he did — but warned that parts of that evidence would need to be heard in camera for reasons of sensitivity and operational security. He also told the commission he had information suggesting that “some associates of Mchunu had dodgy dealings with the criminal underworld.”
The task team’s remit, according to Mkhwanazi, extended beyond KwaZulu-Natal. He described how, after early successes, the unit had been deployed to assist colleagues in Gauteng on counter-intelligence and high-profile investigations. That deployment, he said, was partly motivated by credible threats to the safety of two detectives working on those matters.
“Lt General Khumalo of Crime Intelligence… conducted a threat assessment,” Mkhwanazi said. “Subsequent to that, Khumalo established an investigation, registered under counter-intelligence, which runs parallel to this, in order to investigate the threat further. When the threats were presented concerning the two detectives, he felt it important to request support from law enforcement outside Gauteng to ensure their protection.”
Mkhwanazi said senior prosecutors had also raised concerns and formally written to the police seeking protection for the detectives, and that the interprovincial support was a direct response to those warnings.
Commissioners were given an outline of how the task team began, its initial plan, and how it grew in profile to operate across provincial borders. Mkhwanazi said the team’s successes led to deployments in Eastern Cape and Gauteng, and that “men and women in blue” from across the service would be called as witnesses in due course.
A recurring theme of Mkhwanazi’s testimony was the assertion that the level of infiltration by criminal syndicates into state institutions was deeper and broader than previously appreciated. He suggested that some senior decisions within the police had been influenced by actors with links to organised crime — a charge that, if substantiated, would carry serious political and criminal implications.
Outside the Commission, criminologist Professor Kholofelo Rakubu said the day’s evidence indicated there was admissible material before the commission that could substantiate the commissioner’s claims.
“What we know now is that there is admissible evidence,” Professor Rakubu said after day one. “Today, with what is available on the table, it looks like indeed there’s evidence. The commission could refer to certain annexures that are indeed evidence. This is deeper than we thought, and it has the potential of being one of the most sequential inquiries into corruption that we’ve experienced.”
Rakubu warned, however, that commissions of inquiry are limited by their mandate. “One wishes that the commission had more powers than recommendation powers. One wishes that they could go beyond that. But again, we still want recommendations that can be active and easily implemented, not vague,” she said. Rakubu called for direct and specific recommendations so that the inquiry’s findings would not linger unanswered, as has happened in the past.
She described the picture that emerged on day one as a “spider’s web” far larger than anticipated and praised Mkhwanazi for setting a clear tone that could prompt further whistleblowers — including police officers — to come forward.
“It was the first day, and he was sure of his story. We hope that lays the foundation for other whistleblowers to come forth,” she said.
Several elements of Mkhwanazi’s evidence will be explored behind closed doors. The commissioner repeatedly warned that sensitive docket information and testimony linked to ongoing investigations would need to be heard in camera. That approach will limit what can be reported publicly in the short term, but it also signals the commission’s willingness to handle classified or operational material.
The commission is due to reconvene on Thursday, when it is expected to hear more about the KwaZulu-Natal members of the task team who were sent to Gauteng to assist with investigations, and to call witnesses who may corroborate or challenge the commissioner’s account.
Observers say the unfolding inquiry could prompt significant accountability if allegations are substantiated — but they stress the path from evidence to consequence is neither automatic nor straightforward. Commissions make findings and recommendations; prosecutions, suspensions, or criminal charges follow separate processes that require further investigation and, in many cases, political will.
For now, day one has delivered headline allegations and the promise of more in-camera revelations. Mkhwanazi’s insistence that he has evidence — coupled with Professor Rakubu’s view that admissible annexures are on the table — raises the stakes for the Madlanga Commission. South Africans will be watching closely as the inquiry moves from broad assertions to the specifics of who did what, when, and how.
As the commission continues, the crucial questions will be whether the evidence presented can be translated into clear findings and actionable recommendations, and whether those recommendations will be implemented with the urgency the country’s beleaguered criminal justice system now demands. The answers will determine whether the Madlanga inquiry becomes a definitive turning point in the fight against criminality and political interference — or another probe whose full promise remains unrealised.
