The constitution expressly requires that all organs of state make effective and efficient use of resources. That the treasure trove of Zondo commission data is a resource of use to the prosecuting authority is beyond question. A good chunk of the roughly R1bn spent on the commission went into the creation of the database.

Yet the data has not reached the interested prosecutors more than two years after the finalisation of the report of the commission, and for far longer since the data was assembled. Why this is so is disputed — there has either been gatekeeping or neglect in maintaining access to the electronic database.

The chair of the oversight body in parliament, the justice portfolio committee of the National Assembly, has noted that “the committee will call the department and all the role players to enlighten MPs and the public on this serious matter. The country’s reputation to deal with crime and corruption is at stake when allegations of this nature are circulated”.

Quite so. When the Marikana commission offered its records to the University of Cape Town, the archivists there insisted on ink on paper, pointing to the pitfalls of cyberspace as a storage facility. The records went up in flames when the university’s library caught fire. That fate does not await the Zondo commission data. Whatever the reason for the data not being made available for so long, heads should roll.

The lack of independence of the National Prosecuting Authority is highlighted by the ineffectiveness of its efforts to secure access to the data. Countering corruption should, constitutionally speaking, be the mandate of an independent body of trained specialists who are properly resourced and secure in their tenure of office. And not too shy to act without fear, favour or prejudice.

Paul Hoffman
Director, Accountability Now