Two inquiries, one whistleblower, General Mkhwanazi, and only one question
Paul Hoffman asks who will guard the guardians in SA
If one asks AI the obvious question: What will the Madlanga Commission make of General Mkhwanazi’s complaints? The answer it gives is also obvious:
“AI Overview:
The Madlanga Commission will treat the explosive allegations by KZN Police Commissioner Lt Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi as credible, systemic evidence of state capture. While Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi himself is the primary whistle-blower, his revelations of syndicates have triggered extensive investigations into rogue law enforcement officials, including suspended EMPD Deputy Chief Julius Mkhwanazi. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The commission’s approach and findings include:
- Validation of Infiltration: The commission treats Mkhwanazi’s complaints seriously, as his evidence forms the foundational premise of its mandate to investigate the infiltration of criminal syndicates into intelligence, the NPA, and the judiciary. [1, 2]
- Targeting Corrupt Officials: The commission does not just take the complaints at face value; it has led to actionable referrals. For instance, explosive investigations have targeted implicated figures within the EMPD and SAPS (such as allegations surrounding the “Medicare24” contract and drug busts), culminating in the arrest of several senior officials. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Scrutinizing Counter-Complaints: In turn, the commission is highly adversarial in testing Mkhwanazi’s own credibility and the veracity of his subordinates’ claims. It has intensely grilled witnesses on contradicting affidavits, falsities, and efforts to shield certain politicians or cartel figures. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].”
If the same question is asked concerning the approach of the ad hoc Committee of parliament which is tasked with assessing the same complaints, the answer from AI is much more cautious:
“AI Overview
The Ad Hoc Committee is currently evaluating a comprehensive evidentiary overview of General Mkhwanazi’s complaints, which include allegations of political interference, systemic corruption, and the infiltration of crime syndicates within the police and justice clusters. Final findings and recommendations are scheduled for presentation to the National Assembly by July 31, 2026. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Members of the committee are tasked with assessing sworn testimonies and documentary evidence—including input from key figures like the former Minister of Police and the National Commissioner—to determine the veracity and institutional impact of Mkhwanazi’s claims. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The committee’s ultimate conclusions and proposed legislative remedies depend entirely on this ongoing deliberation process. You can track the progress of these deliberations and the adoption of the final report directly on the Parliament of South Africa committee page. [1, 2, 3]”
The final report of the parliamentary committee is due by the end of July 2026 and that of the Madlanga Commission, assuming no extensions are granted, is due on 31 August 2026.
The question the general has raised is as old as good governance. Historically, it was (perhaps) first posed by the ancient Roman poet Juvenal in the context of keeping cheating spouses honest: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, or “Who guards our guardians themselves?”.
The context used by Juvenal, in translation, explains the question:
I know the plan that my friends always advise me to adopt:
“Bolt her in, constrain her!” But who will watch the
watchmen? They keep quiet about the girl’s
secrets and get her as their payment; everyone hushes it up.
The Mkhwanazi media briefing on 6 July 2025 was certainly dramatic. Clad in camouflage uniform, surrounded by similarly clad and armed police personnel, some wearing masks, it made for shocking viewing.
When he gave evidence to the ad hoc committee, the Acting Minister of Police, Professor Firoz Cachalia, described the media briefing as “inappropriate” in the following ways:
- Breach of Command Structures: He stated that the public briefing bypassed and disrespected established SAPS command structures and professional conduct protocols within the ministry.
- Inappropriate Regalia: He expressed strong displeasure with Mkhwanazi’s decision to appear before the public in a full, armed Special Task Force military uniform, noting that the regalia was “not respectful of SAPS structures”
- Manner of Public Disclosure: Cachalia testified that the briefing “worried him” because of how highly sensitive allegations—which accused the previous minister of political interference and protecting cartels—were broadcast publicly rather than being addressed through formal internal oversight channels.
It does however appear from the record of his own evidence that Mkhwanazi did try to communicate through official channels, including the portfolio committee on policing in the National Assembly, all to no avail. The decision to “go public” , dramatically so, appears to have been informed by the inability to get the message of the media briefing through using the command structures, which may themselves be compromised by some of the nefarious activities chronicled during the media briefing and the subsequent evidence. Perhaps the regalia donned for the occasion was to bring home the message that the complaints raised are regarded by Mkhwanazi as serious in nature.
There are several contenders for the role of the guardians of the criminal justice system in SA. The courts are enjoined to be independent and impartial. They do not investigate or prosecute, they adjudicate. The police are constitutionally required to prevent, combat and investigate all crime while the National Prosecuting Authority must prosecute all crime without fear, favour or prejudice by acting impartially and under the final responsibility of the minister of justice. Everyone knows that without a thorough investigation a successful prosecution is unlikely to follow. The NPA can accordingly only be as good as the investigative work of the SAPS.
Acting Minister Cachalia favours reforms of the kind proposed by the National Anti-Corruption Advisory Council, which he chaired. Whether his colleagues in cabinet are like-minded seems doubtful. Cabinet has been mulling the final report of NACAC since August 2025. It is plain that NACAC has lost confidence in the ability of the Hawks (or DPCI) to deal with serious corruption, rightly so. The cure NACAC recommends, in non-binding fashion, is the setting up of a new Chapter Nine Institution, the Office of Public Integrity, to deal with what is called “systemic corruption”. The fundamental difficulty with the OPI is that it is not designed in a way that will satisfy the criteria for status as a Chapter Nine body. NACAC wants the president to be able to give instructions to the OPI. The executive branch of government, which the president heads, has no business giving instructions to any Chapter Nine body. The reporting lines of all Chapter Nines are to parliament, not the executive.
The executive has also lost confidence in the anti-corruption capacity of the Hawks; it has demonstrated this by the creation of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption within the National Prosecuting Authority. The IDAC is deeply and darkly unconstitutional for the reasons explained to the president before he signed the directorate into law. See:
The NPA is not meant to have investigative capacity, not since the demise of the Scorpions and the creation of the Hawks to tackle the investigation of “priority crimes” which include corruption and organised crime.
The former shadow minister of justice, Adv Glynnis Breytenbach has a constitutionally pure suggestion. She favours the establishment and enablement of a new Chapter Nine body, an Anti-Corruption Commission, to deal with serious corruption and organised crime in the manner required by the findings of the Constitutional Court in the Glenister litigation. It is only right and proper that the binding findings against government in that litigation be accorded the necessary respect by the government. It is significant that the court has used the term “deal with” via a single body. This implies a single agency solution to all the issues around addressing corruption efficiently and effectively.
There are two bills in the works in parliament that are aimed at introducing the reform the law requires and Breytenbach desires. The swift passage of these bills ought to be a way forward that is supported by all parties of integrity and goodwill which are represented in parliament. Getting the bills to the vote (a two-thirds vote in favour is required) ought to be a priority in the law-making work of parliament. The vote will reveal who is, and who is not, serious about addressing the scourge of corruption in SA in a constitutionally compliant fashion. The veritable torrent of highly destructive molten lava spewing from the massive eruptions of corruption in the country needs to be addressed with urgency.
Corruption within the police is currently and in theory meant to be addressed by IPID, the Independent Police Investigating Directorate. This body has an incomplete statutory framework, too few personnel, an unworkable case load per investigator and too close a relationship with the ministry of police to properly fulfil its functions.
Its entire mandate on corruption in the police should be transferred to the Chapter Nine Body that is needed to ensure that adequate independence of the corruption busters is in place following the ruling of our apex court that: “… Our law demands a body outside executive control to deal efficiently with corruption.” Anything less won’t do. A single body, specialised in anti-corruption work, with trained personnel, adequately independent in its structure and operations, resourced in guaranteed fashion and secure in its tenure of office is urgently needed to keep SA in good standing with the relevant international authorities. The political will to muster the necessary majority vote in parliament has to be mustered if the issue is not to be litigated.
Paul Hoffman SC is a director of Accountability Now
26 June 2026
0 Comments