South Africa’s history is marked by numerous commissions of inquiry that have focused on investigating corruption, human rights abuses, and systemic failures. While some have made significant contributions to understanding these issues, others have struggled to deliver justice, raising concerns about their effectiveness, costs, and long-term impact.
Recently, allegations involving Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, Deputy Police Commissioner Shadrack Sibiya, and officials linked to a criminal syndicate have once again thrust the spotlight on the role and effectiveness of these bodies following President Cyril Ramaphosa’s announcement that a commission of inquiry would be established to investigate the allegations.
While commissions have played a crucial role in exposing wrongdoing, critics argue their impact often falls short of delivering tangible justice.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and established in 1995, was instrumental in addressing apartheid atrocities, fostering national healing through truth-telling, and encouraging dialogue among victims and perpetrators.
However, many critics and some political parties argue that the commission failed in its primary goals of reconciliation and prosecution.
Decades later, the Zondo Commission, set up in 2018 to investigate allegations of state capture involving former President Jacob Zuma and the Gupta family, uncovered widespread corruption at the highest levels of government.
Its findings have led to numerous referrals for prosecution and prompted policy reforms. Yet, despite the hefty price tag – nearly R1 billion, many critics argue that it has yet to produce the expected results.
Other notable inquiries include the Seriti Commission, which investigated the 2012 arms deal but was widely criticised for failing to hold anyone accountable; and the Marikana Commission, which examined the police killing of 34 striking miners in 2012 but resulted in few prosecutions and lingering dissatisfaction among victims’ families.
Experts argue that many commissions have successfully exposed systemic abuses and informed public debate. However, translating these revelations into action remains a persistent challenge.
Critics argue that commissions can serve as political tools rather than genuine agents of reform, citing political interference, limited resources, and the slow pace of follow-up actions as factors diminishing their ability to effect meaningful change.
Independent political analyst Professor Sipho Seepe expressed skepticism about the actual utility of some commissions.
“There is nothing wrong with commissions of inquiry in unraveling societal challenges. The challenge arises when recommendations of commissions are ignored.
“South Africans have had the misfortune of having to contend with two of the worst commissions recently, the Nugent and Zondo Commissions. These commissions were politically tainted from the outset.”
Seepe argued that their chair weaponised them to target specific individuals instead of providing insights into the country’s challenges.
“They became arsenals of the so-called ‘New Dawn’ to target individuals associated with a certain faction within the ANC. Both these commissions have done no great disservice in South Africa’s body politic to the extent that many South Africans have lost faith in commissions as mechanisms to address societal challenges.”
In his academic article ‘Integrity & Accountability Commissions of Inquiry: A South African Perspective,’ Lauren Kohn proposed a permanent commission that seeks truth and enforces solutions.
“South Africans cannot again sleep through state capture. Abuses of public power must be brought to light and dealt with swiftly and effectively. Establishing a permanent commission would greatly enhance public trust and confidence in government, and indeed that of the ‘state’ more broadly. It exists to advance the public interest and perhaps even, as many authors suggest, ‘the well-being of its members’.”
Kohn felt that the presidency’s adoption of this recommendation would also help to keep the spirit of truth and reconciliation alive.
“The benefits of commissions of inquiry have been examined above. One of their costs is that the public expenditure that goes into their operation does not yield real dividends when it matters most; namely, after their terms end, when reports tend to gather dust and recommendations get shelved.”
Professor Dirk Kotze from the University of South Africa echoes this view, stating the importance of timely and well-resourced investigations.
“A commission of inquiry is a fundamental and practical mechanism to investigate. If it is done within the day, then it can be beneficial and prosperous. The challenge is often that the implementation of recommendations is delayed or inadequate, which diminishes their impact.
“The reason many commissions, like those on the PIC, fail to bring about tangible change is not due to their principle but political interference and resource constraints. It’s often seen as an easy or cheap option, but without proper follow-through, its effectiveness is limited.”
List of Commissions since 1995 include the Nel Commission (2001), Ngoepe Commission (2001), Inquiry into human rights violations in farming communities (2001), Jali Commission (2001), Ngobeni Commission of Inquiry (2001), Myburgh Commission (2002), Donen, Commission (2002), and Hefer Commission (2003).
Khampepe Commission (2005), Ginwala Enquiry (2007), Seriti Commission (Arms Procurement) (2011), Khayelitsha Commission of Inquiry (2012), Marikana Commission (2012), Cassim Inquiry (2015) Fees Commission (Higher Education and Nugent Commission (Tax Administration and SARS Governance) (2018), PIC Commission (Public Investment Corporation) (2018), and Mokgoro Commission (Fitness of NPA officials) (2018).
Politics
