Opinion
Do Commissions of Inquiry Deliver Justice or Expose Institutional Weakness? A Case Study in the South African Context
By Tinashe T. T. Mpasiri
In a constitutional democracy like South Africa, the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry often signals a pivotal moment, one where truth is sought, justice is promised, and the constitutional order is reaffirmed. Yet, behind the grandeur of such commissions lies a complex question: do they truly deliver on the promise of the restoration of constitutionalism and justice under the rule of law? Or do they serve to expose the very fragility of the institutions meant to safeguard these ideals?
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s announcement on 13 July 2025 of a judicial Commission of Inquiry into the alleged infiltration of South Africa’s law enforcement agencies by criminal syndicates is, by all accounts, a sobering case study. The allegations put forth by KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner, Lt Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, are nothing short of explosive: a web of criminal syndicates entwined with the highest echelons of law enforcement, prosecution, correctional services, and even the judiciary.
The decision to act decisively, appointing Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga to lead the inquiry and placing the Minister of Police on immediate leave—appears, on the surface, a reaffirmation of the constitutional imperative to uphold the rule of law. Yet, the very need for such an inquiry begs the question: how did we arrive at a point where institutions constitutionally mandated to protect the public stand accused of serving criminal interests?
The Dual Nature of Commissions
Commissions of Inquiry are often established in moments of national crisis. They represent both a tool for investigation and a symbolic act of accountability. In theory, they embody a constitutional democracy’s highest ideals—transparency, justice, and institutional integrity. But in practice, they can also reflect systemic breakdowns in the ordinary mechanisms of governance and oversight.
South Africa’s recent history is replete with commissions, the Zondo Commission being the most prominent, which have shed light on rampant state capture and corruption. Yet years later, few tangible prosecutions have followed. This pattern risks normalizing a dangerous dynamic: that commissions expose but do not resolve; that they soothe public outrage without delivering actual justice.
The Ramaphosa commission, while necessary, reveals an alarming truth: our existing institutions have failed to act on credible intelligence, prosecute wrongdoing, and protect whistleblowers. These are not mere lapses; they are constitutional betrayals.
Constitutional Oaths and Institutional Failure
Every public office bearer in South Africa swears an oath to “uphold, defend, and respect the Constitution.” This is not ceremonial. It is a legal and moral undertaking. The allegations that senior officials may have actively colluded with criminals or failed to act on credible warnings are a breach of that oath, a direct assault on the Constitution itself.
A commission should never become a substitute for functional oversight bodies such as Parliament, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), or the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). Yet, the establishment of this inquiry suggests these institutions were either unable or unwilling to fulfill their mandates.
When oversight is outsourced to ad hoc commissions, it reflects a democracy under strain, a constitutional order limping instead of walking tall.
A Moment of Truth
Still, every crisis is also a crossroads. If handled with integrity, urgency, and follow-through, this commission could set a precedent for renewal. For this to happen, however, several conditions must be met:
- Transparency: The public must have access to the commission’s findings. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
- Timely Action: Interim and final reports must lead to immediate prosecutions, disciplinary actions, and legislative reforms.
- Institutional Reform: Recommendations must address the systemic weaknesses that allowed criminal infiltration. Rebuilding trust in law enforcement requires structural change, not cosmetic fixes.
- Whistleblower Protection: Those who come forward must be shielded from retaliation. No democracy can function if truth-tellers live in fear.
Conclusion: The Real Test of Constitutionalism
Commissions of Inquiry, in themselves, do not restore justice, they illuminate the path. It is up to the institutions of state to walk that path with courage and resolve.
President Ramaphosa has taken a critical first step in acknowledging the gravity of the crisis. The real measure of success will lie in what happens after the final report is tabled, whether it is acted upon decisively, and whether those who betrayed the Constitution are held to account, regardless of rank or office.
The future of South Africa’s constitutional democracy may well depend on whether this commission becomes yet another archive of lost hope, or a turning point in the long walk toward justice under the rule of law.
