In SA today greed as manifested in corrupt activities is at the root of most, if not all, political killings. Greedy pursuit of power, lust for easy money and a culture of impunity for corrupt activities have nurtured the matters of which the general complains.

Clearly, the system for preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting the corrupt, whether or not they are involved in politically motivated killings, is not working optimally. When a provincial commissioner of police feels obliged to throw his colleagues at head office and his minister under the bus, the system is obviously not working as it should. When taken together with a mysterious reference to the involvement of the judiciary in the wrongdoing, (no individual members of the judiciary are named, nor is their rank,) the seriousness of the matter is compounded exponentially.

At the heart of the complaints raised by the general is the lack of independence of the anti-corruption machinery of state in SA as it is at present constituted as a multi-agency effort. Political meddling in the work of the police and the prosecutors is of the essence of the matters raised by the general during his wide ranging media conference on Sunday 6 July 2025.

He does not draw attention to the fact that as long ago as March 2011 the broader issues now at stake were raised and debated in the litigation embarked on by Johannesburg businessman Bob Glenister, who took his unhappiness with the disbandment of the Scorpions and the ensuing reforms all the way to the Constitutional Court on no fewer than three occasions. In the second of the three appeals, a majority judgment was handed down by the court in which the criteria by which to recognise functional, effective and efficient anti-corruption machinery of state were set out and have become known as the STIRS criteria.

The STIRS acronym identifies:

· Specialisation in the sense of being dedicated to the issues around corruption to the exclusion of all else.

· Training for recruits to empower and enable them to become experts able to match the wiles of cunning corrupt operators and their well-paid lawyers.

· Independence of the institution at both structural and operational levels to ensure that political influence and interference are not brought to bear on staff and that they are able to function without fear, favour or prejudice with impartiality as their watchword.

· Resources that are adequate to the reasonable needs of the corruption fighters and are guaranteed so that their non-payment cannot be used as a means of stifling their functioning and level of performance.

· Secure tenure of office for all corruption fighters so as to remove the threat of dismissal or disbandment such as happened to former NDPP Vusi Pikoli and the entire Scorpions unit of his NPA which was dissolved following a decision made immediately Jacob Zuma came to power in the ANC at Polokwane in 2007. Had the Scorpions enjoyed the protection of Chapter Nine status they would still be in existence and the whole trajectory of state capture in SA would have been less stellar.

This happy state would have been due to the fact that a two thirds majority in parliament would have been needed to close them down, had the Scorpions enjoyed Chapter Nine status. Instead, they were a mere creature of ordinary legislation and could be dissolved with a simple majority. This in fact happened when, in the face of all parliamentary opposition and widespread public misgivings, the ANC used its majority in parliament to dissolve the Scorpions in 2009.

The joint judgment that identified the STIRS criteria contains a finding that is best quoted verbatim:

“Our law demands a body outside executive control to deal effectively with corruption.”

This finding led to the following two orders:

“5. It is declared that Ch 6A of the South African Police Service Act 68 of 1995 is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it fails to secure an adequate degree of independence for the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation.

6. The declaration of constitutional invalidity is suspended for 18 months in order to give Parliament the opportunity to remedy the defect.”

Parliament has not yet properly implemented the finding of invalidity made in paragraph 5 of the Court Order quoted above.

If adequate independence had been accorded to the criminal justice administration’s anti-corruption machinery, it is doubtful that the complaints now made by Mkhwanazi would have seen the light of day because they would not have arisen.

It is particularly disturbing that the general fingers the judiciary in his media statement without identifying the court(s) or the judicial officer(s) involved in the corrupt activities of which he complains.

The role of the judiciary in the battle against the corrupt is a pivotal one and accordingly it is vital that its independence and integrity both be regarded as sacrosanct in all dealings in the war on the corrupt which ought to be the business of everyone in any way connected to the criminal justice administration in SA. It is accordingly worrying that the judiciary receives a swipe from Mkhwanazi that is so broad and lacking in specificity as to be of no use to the concerned observer or anyone interested in exacting accountability from the judiciary at all levels from district court to Constitutional Court.

The information put into the public domain by the general raises the questions around the failure to comply properly with the orders of court set out above in stark relief. The suggestion by him that his minister is involved in the shenanigans he describes is unthinkable in any properly functioning constitutional democracy under the rule of law.

As was pointed out in the third and final Glenister case in the opening words of the majority judgment penned by Chief Justice Mogoeng in November 2014:

“All South Africans across the racial, religious, class and political divide are in broad agreement that corruption is rife in this country and that stringent measures are required to contain this malady before it graduates into something terminal.\ “We are in one accord that SA 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.”

The broader issues at stake in the battle to see off the corrupt in the nation is dealt with poetically in the second Glenister case’s majority judgment in the following words:

“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.”

These words are worth pondering as the president wings his way home to deal with the fallout from the statements made by General Mkhwanazi.

There is a bespoke and tailor-made answer to the issues that swirl around the dysfunction in the criminal justice administration when it comes to dealing with corruption in all its many and varied forms.

Currently in the works of parliament are two private members bills aimed at establishing and enabling a new Chapter Nine Anti-Corruption Commission that ticks all of the boxes created in the second Glenister judgment, and in particular those aligned with the various STIRS criteria created in it.

The allegations made by Mkhwanazi effectively disable the leadership of the SAPS. NPA and the ministry of police when it comes to dealing with the fallout occasioned by his media conference. Rapid goal-oriented reform to align the criminal justice system’s anti-corruption functions with the STIRS criteria is long overdue. It may not have been the intention of Mkhwanazi to bring about the reform so long overdue, but, if his efforts slay the hydra headed monster that he describes in his complaints, he will have performed a public service that will long be remembered and revered.

Paul Hoffman SC is a director of Accountability Now.