The SONA of 2026, delivered in the city hall of Cape Town by President Cyril Ramaphosa contains a vital message worth quoting in full:

“A stronger South Africa must be safe and secure.

The cost of crime is measured in lives lost and futures cut short. It is felt also in the sense of fear that permeates our society and in the reluctance of businesses to invest.

Children here in the Western Cape are caught in the crossfire of gang wars. People are chased out of their homes by illegal miners in Kagiso in Gauteng. Women are murdered by their partners in their homes. Building sites are shut down by criminals.

This must and will change.

Organised crime is now the most immediate threat to our democracy, our society and our economic development.

Our primary focus this year is on stepping up the fight against organised crime and criminal syndicates, using technology, intelligence and integrated law enforcement.

The penultimate paragraph of this extract is a vital message from the perspective of both the presidency and the people of SA. It echoes the words of the Constitutional Court, which issued a salutary warning in its majority judgment in the seminal Glenister Two case, in 2011:

“The need and rationale for combating corruption

[166] There can be no gainsaying that corruption threatens to fell at the knees virtually everything we hold dear and precious in our hard-won constitutional order. It blatantly undermines the democratic ethos, the institutions of democracy, the rule of law and the foundational values of our nascent constitutional project. It fuels maladministration and public fraudulence and imperils the capacity of the State to fulfil its obligations to respect, protect, promote and fulfil all the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. When corruption and organised crime flourish, sustainable development and economic growth are stunted. And in turn, the stability and security of society is put at risk.”

The opening paragraphs of preamble of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (or POCA) of 1998 show that government has been alive to the challenges posed by organised crime for decades:

“WHEREAS the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996 ), enshrines the rights of all people in the Republic and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom;

AND WHEREAS the Constitution places a duty on the State to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bil of Rights;

AND WHEREAS there is a rapid growth of organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities nationally and internationally and since organised crime has internationally been identified as an international security threat;

AND WHEREAS organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities infringe on the rights of the people as enshrined in the Bill of Rights;

AND WHEREAS it is the right of every person to be protected from fear, intimidation and physical harm caused by the criminal activities of violent gangs and individuals;

AND WHEREAS organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities, both individually and collectively, present a danger to public order and safety and economic stability, and have the potential to inflict social damage;

AND WHEREAS the South African common law and statutory law fail to deal effectively with organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities, and also fail to keep pace with international measures aimed at dealing effectively with organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities; …”

While the focus of the Act is organised crime in contradistinction to the corruption focus of the Glenister litigation, the adequacy of the institutions of state to deal with both effectively has be wanting for far too many years.

The cure prescribed by both POCA and the binding court judgment has not yet been administered largely due to the fact that there is yet to be established a “body outside executive control to deal effectively with corruption” as is required by paragraph 200 of the court findings. This failure is easily addressed via remedial legislation which is already in the parliamentary pipeline.

A private members bill piloted by the co-chair of the Constitutional Review Committee of the National Assembly and former shadow minister of justice, Adv Glynnis Breytenbach, contemplates the establishment of a new Chapter Nine Institution to deal with corruption effectively and to address the issues that organised crime raises.

It remains to be seen whether the ANC, the largest party in parliament, is prepared to support the worthy initiative by Breytenbach. Without ANC support the necessary two thirds majority to pass her plan will not be forthcoming irrespective of support from other parties. The ANC bloc, assuming no renegade votes, is larger than one third of the seats in parliament.

The words quoted from the SONA of 12 February 2026, set out above, need to be taken seriously and must be acted upon by all parliamentarians. The onus is on them to either support the Breytenbach initiative or to come up with an alternative that is better. The court in Glenister Two required no more than that parliament make the “reasonable decision of a reasonable decision-maker in the circumstances”. The initial response of parliament fell short and the progress of state capture and “tenderpreneurism” in SA indicate that there is still work to be done to tackle the scourges of corruption and organised crime.

The president has both identified and prioritised the problem in SONA. It remains to be seen whether parliament will grasp the nettle by clearing the way to the establishment of that body outside executive control that is required in terms of the Glenister Two decision. Respect for the rule of law and the honouring of binding court decisions both suggest that the time has come for all in parliament to get behind the Breytenbach initiative, debate it thoroughly, polish its provisions and make it law.

There is much suitable talent in the private sector and indeed in the Special Investigations Unit, as well as the NPA and SAPS, which can be put to work on carrying out the mandate of the new Chapter Nine body. While the SIU is not part of the criminal justice administration, its skills in uncovering corruption and raking back loot from the crooks involved in corruption and organised crime suggest its closure and the transfer of its “top guns” into the new Chapter Nine body. The vetting, lifestyle audits and integrity testing of all recruits to the new body is the way of ensuring that it will function optimally from the get go. The judgment of Justice Cameron in the third Glenister case affords useful guidance on how to ensure the probity of the new body, an essential requirement in all the circumstances.

The president hit the bullseye with the label he put on organised crime. When, back in 2019 he was first introduced (by the IFP Chief Whip) to the idea of a Chapter Nine body to deal with corruption, he found the notion “refreshing” and undertook to “mull over it”. It is to be hoped that the mulling has led the president to the same conclusion reached by Breytenbach MP: a new approach to corruption and organised crime via the establishment of the Chapter Nine body she favours.

Courts do not tell parliament what to do. They rule on the constitutionality of the laws that are passed and afford parliament, when laws are found wanting, the opportunity of passing remedial legislation. The legislation that has followed the Glenister ruling has not proved effective. Corruption and organised crime continue to hinder most seriously the delivery of the promises to the people made in the Bill of Rights (see the first “AND WHEREAS” quoted above). The  legislation which created IDAC (the Investigating Directorate against corruption) is plainly unconstitutional for reasons that were explained to the president before he signed the IDAC bill into law. 

Litigating IDAC off the statute book is eminently doable, however, preferable by far is parliament waking up and smelling the roses placed before it during SONA. The hint toward a new Chapter Nine body given by the Constitutional Court in Glenister Two ought to help those parliamentarians who hesitate:

“[205] We add that any obligation binding upon the Republic under international law must not conflict with express provisions of the Constitution, including those in the Bill of Rights. Here, there is no conflict. Far from containing any provision at odds with the obligation to create an independent corruption-fighting entity, the very structure of our Constitution — in which the rule of law is a founding value, which distributes power by separating it between the legislature,  the executive  and the judiciary,  and which creates various institutions supporting constitutional democracy, which it expressly decrees must be independent and impartial  — affords the obligation a homely and emphatic welcome.”

An independent body to deal effectively with corruption and organised crime is long overdue in SA. Parliament must act urgently to make that independent body available to protect the people of SA. The president has shown the necessary leadership in his 2026 SONA, the onus is now on parliament to act on his identification of organised crime as a scourge in SA that requires its urgent attention.

Paul Hoffman SC is a director of Accountability Now and was lead counsel in the Glenister litigation