According to a report in Polity, Busi Mavuso of Business Unity SA has expressed strong views on the dysfunction in the criminal justice system’s capacity to deal with corruption effectively. According to her perspective, testimony to the Madlanga Commission has revealed a Gauteng-based network linked to Vusimuzi Matlala, who has cultivated alleged corrupt relationships with senior police and government officials.

The testimony undermines any sense that the police are willing or able to defend the rule of law in the country, she says.

This is significant for business because, when police are compromised, property rights become negotiable, contract enforcement becomes uncertain and investment decisions must factor in whether the rule of law will hold, Mavuso points out.

A succinct summary of Mavuso’s view is provided in Legalbrief Today on 31 March 2026:

Progress has been slow, but the arrests show it’s becoming tangible. These cases test whether anyone is above the law and restore public confidence, she says. Testimony to the Madlanga Commission revealed a Gauteng-based network linked to Vusimuzi Matlala, who cultivated alleged corrupt relationships with senior police and government officials. The testimony undermined any sense that the police are willing or able to defend the rule of law in the country, she says. These arrests strike at the institutional rot that has been eating away at the country’s capacity to enforce the law, she adds. Swift and successful prosecution is essential so the public can see justice being done, but SA needs fundamental institutional reform. The Madlanga Commission report must be the catalyst for a fundamental overhaul.

The structural and operational difficulties of the state in its handling of the challenges posed by grand corruption and state capture in SA are not new. They were given comprehensive consideration by the apex court in the Glenister trilogy of cases that arose after the Scorpions were disbanded at the instance of the ANC’s resolution to do so at its Polokwane conference held in December 2007.

In Glenister Two the court ordered parliament to reform the legislation that created the Hawks as a substitute for the investigative capacity of the Scorpions. The rationale for doing so is explained by the court in the following passage in its majority judgment:

“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 court’s binding solution to the challenge posed by corruption with impunity is described by the court as follows:

[C]orruption in the polity corrodes the rights to equality, human dignity, freedom, security of the person and various socio-economic rights. That corrosion necessarily triggers the duties s7(2) imposes on the State. We have also noted that it is open to the State in fulfilling those duties to choose how best to combat corruption. That choice must withstand constitutional scrutiny. And, even leaving to one side for a moment the Republic’s international-law obligations, we consider that the scheme of our Constitution points to the cardinal need for an independent entity to combat corruption. [50] Even without international law, these legal institutions and provisions point to a manifest conclusion. It is that, on a common-sense approach, our law demands a body outside executive control to deal effectively with corruption.”

Due to a tragic lack of political will on the part of government, no such body has ever seen the light of day in SA.

In the third and last of the Glenister cases, the then Chief Justice, Mogoeng Mogoeng, opened the majority judgment of his court with the following broadside:

“Corruption is rife in this country and stringent measures are required to contain this malady before it graduates into something terminal. We are in one accord that South Africa needs an agency dedicated to the containment and eventual eradication of the scourge of corruption. We also agree that the entity must enjoy adequate structural and operational independence to deliver effectively and efficiently on its core mandate.”

That “agency” is meant to be a body outside executive control that is equipped to deal effectively with corruption. The problem SA now faces is that no such body exists.

The NPA and SAPS are demonstrably not bodies outside executive control. The extent of the control of the minister of police over the SAPS is the subject matter of the Madlanga Commission. It is plain from the wording of the Constitution that the NPA is no more than a program within the department of justice. NPA policy is subject to the concurrence of the minister of justice who enjoys “final responsibility over” the NPA. The accounting officer of the NPA is the director general of justice; all senior appointments in the NPA are the duty of the president. These features are not the stuff of being “outside executive control”.

While reform of the NPA and SAPS is desirable, the reform that is required by the highest court in the land involves the creation of a new single body outside executive control that has the features laid down in law by the court in Glenister Two. A specialist body of trained experts in anti-corruption work, independent in its structure and operations, resourced in guaranteed fashion and secure in its tenure of office is the type of body the court requires in terms that bind government. These criteria have become known as the STIRS criteria. They were acknowledged by the acting minister of police when he gave evidence before the ad hoc committee of the National Assembly that is pondering the complaints made by Lt Gen N Mhkwanazi in July 2025.

Neither the NPA nor the SAPS are specialist, stand-alone bodies of the kind required by the Glenister rulings. With amazing foresight the court has identified the inwardness of the problem besetting the capacity of the state to counter the corrupt. It is the tendency of the executive to harbour, protect and excuse the corrupt in its ranks and in the ranks of its supporters in parliament and elsewhere. The Zondo Commission identified nearly 100 leading members of the ANC who it found need to be investigated for their prima facie corrupt activities. To date only one of them has faced the consequences of his criminality in our courts. He is convict Vincent Smith, a former member of parliament. A second MP, Zizi Kodwa, has had charges against him reinstated, while the rest of those pointed out by the Zondo Commission continue to enjoy impunity.

Those who wish to rely on or invoke the rule of law in support of their calls for an end to the corruption with impunity that infests the body politic in SA would do well to have regard to the binding nature of the Glenister rulings and to the failure of the state to implement them.

One current member of parliament has done so. She is the honourable Glynnis Breytenbach, former shadow minister of justice in the sixth parliament and currently co-chair of the constitutional review committee in the seventh parliament. Breytenbach is the sponsor of bills currently pending in parliament that envisage the establishment and enabling of a new Chapter Nine body, a commission against corruption, that is designed to comply with the requirements laid down by the court as its STIRS criteria for the type of body it requires parliament to form.

Once the political will to do so is summoned and actioned, it will be possible to persuade those hesitant to invest in SA that the country has turned the corner on due respect for the rule of law and the long-awaited new investments for which the president longs will begin to flow.

It is legally possible to sue for due compliance with the orders made in the Glenister litigation; it is preferable by far to garner the cross-party political will for parliament to do what the court requires of it. The latter is the right thing for parliament to do if it wishes to accelerate economic development and improve the GNP of the country. Busi Mavuso’s reference to business confidence needs a boost.

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