ISS describes infighting within SAPS as a setback in building public confidence
His comments come a day after KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi went public with damning allegations against Police Minister Senzo Mchunu and other high-ranking officials. Mkhwanazi claimed there is a powerful organised criminal syndicate operating across the country's crime-fighting institutions. Newham said allegations of this magnitude need to be the subject of an inquiry.
"Had the government implemented its own recommendations in the National Development Plan, which came out in 2012, which identifies the crises of top management in the SAPS as a key issue that needs to be urgently addressed, had they addressed those issues back in 2012, we wouldn't be here today."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Ramaphosa's Police Corruption Inquiry: Will This One Deliver?
President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced a new judicial commission to investigate deep-rooted dysfunction within the police. Will this inquiry finally uncover the truth and lead to meaningful change? Image: GCIS When President Cyril Ramaphosa announced yet another judicial commission this time to investigate deep-rooted dysfunction within the police the question wasn't whether the truth would emerge. It was whether anything would change. We've been here before. The Zondo Commission laid bare the full extent of state capture, naming names, exposing networks, and recommending sweeping reforms. Yet years later, South Africans are still asking: How far have we come in implementing those recommendations? Why are so many still waiting for justice, restitution, or real reform? Now, following bombshell revelations by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi who courageously exposed rot, political interference, and operational decay at SAPS's heart we're again placing hope in a judicial commission. But hard questions demand answers. Will this be another toothless inquiry, destined to produce a glossy report and little else? Will Mkhwanazi be supported or scapegoated? Will the public be engaged or merely placated? Most importantly: What will make this commission succeed where so many have failed? Judicial commissions have become our default crisis response. From ethics violations to public trust deficits, policymakers reflexively turn to them as proof of action. Yet government shelves already groan under dust covered reports that achieved little beyond symbolism. The issue isn't whether we need judicial commissions, whether we'll finally design ones built to deliver results rather than rhetoric. The first fatal flaw plaguing most commissions is what I call the accountability paradox: they're granted impressive investigative powers but no enforcement muscle. They excel at exposing problems less so at fixing them. Truly effective commissions transcend "fact-finding" missions to wield binding powers that compel reform. South Africa's own Judicial Service Commission, established in 1994, exemplifies this approach. Beyond overseeing judicial appointments, it enforces ethical conduct through transparent processes public interviews, inclusive representation that helped rebuild trust in our post-apartheid judiciary. Contrast this with advisory only commissions, which quickly become political footballs: praised by supporters, dismissed by opponents, and ultimately relegated to ceremonial irrelevance. Political independence isn't a luxury it's an existential requirement. Across the globe, commissioners have been dismissed or marginalized when their findings threatened powerful interests. South Africa cannot afford this pattern. Genuine independence demands three non-negotiables: Fixed tenure with narrow removal criteria. Commissioners should face dismissal only for serious misconduct or incapacity, requiring supermajority votes or judicial review never political convenience. Secure, dedicated funding. Like courts themselves, commissions must be shielded from budgetary manipulation. Multi-year funding commitments prevent political retaliation through fiscal strangulation. Balanced, credible composition. Legal insiders alone cannot carry reform's burden. The most effective commissions blend judges, attorneys, scholars, and informed public voices in carefully calibrated proportions that reflect society's diversity while maintaining professional credibility. Too many commissions operate behind coverings of secrecy, undermining the very trust they aim to rebuild. In our digital age, opacity isn't just outdated, it's counterproductive to reform goals. Successful commissions embrace radical transparency through: Open hearings where confidentiality permits, inviting public observation Real-time publication of commission activities, findings, and rationales Accessible communication that translates legal complexity into public understanding Proactive engagement with communities, not just legal elites This transparency doesn't compromise integrity, strengthens legitimacy by demonstrating accountability in action. Even visionary recommendations prove worthless without robust follow-through. Reform graveyards overflow with brilliant ideas that never escaped paper. To avoid this fate, effective commissions must: Establish statutory timelines. Vague recommendations enable indefinite delay. Specific deadlines and milestones create pressure for action while enabling progress measurement. Maintain post-report oversight. Commissions shouldn't dissolve upon publication; they should retain monitoring authority to track implementation and publicly highlight foot-dragging. Secure early stakeholder buy-in. Judges, court administrators, civil society, and affected communities should participate from inception, building implementation coalitions rather than resistance movements. Include resource allocation plans. Proposals without funding mechanisms remain wishful thinking. Successful commissions provide detailed cost analyses and financing strategies as integral recommendation components. Judicial commissions don't operate in political vacuums. Effective reform requires understanding of the political ecosystem, not surrendering to it. Strategic considerations include: Cross-party leadership. Single-party commissions face inevitable credibility challenges. Bipartisan endorsement creates broader political investment in success. Thoughtful pacing. While comprehensive reform may be ideal, incremental progress often proves more sustainable than revolutionary proposals triggering massive political backlash. Coalition building. Courts serve everyone. Successful commissions cultivate support extending beyond traditional legal circles to include business groups, civil rights organizations, and other stakeholders invested in judicial effectiveness. Evidence shows that transformative judicial commissions share critical characteristics distinguishing them from failed counterparts: They possess clear mandates with measurable objectives rather than aspirational vagueness. They maintain operational independence through structural protections, not ceremonial declarations. They embrace transparency as a strategy, not liability. They design enforcement mechanisms from the outset rather than hoping for voluntary compliance. Most crucially, they understand that judicial reform ultimately concerns public trust. In an era of declining institutional confidence, commissions that enhance rather than undermine faith in courts serve democracy's fundamental needs. South Africa doesn't lack judicial reform ideas. What's missing is the resolve to implement what experience teaches works. Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi's revelations present both crisis and opportunity. His courage in exposing institutional decay deserves support, not scapegoating. The commission investigating his allegations must be structured for success, not designed for bureaucratic theater. This moment demands more than good intentions. It requires structural clarity, political courage, and unwavering commitment to transparency and public interest. The blueprint for commission success exists, drawn from both our own experience and the best international practices. The only remaining question is whether we possess wisdom and the will to follow it. The stakes couldn't be higher. Public trust in our institutions hangs in the balance. We can continue the cycle of well-intentioned commissions producing impressive reports that gather dust, or we can finally build one designed to deliver the accountability and reform our democracy desperately democracy. Nyaniso Qwesha
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
'The judiciary must accept that its integrity is earned through fearless accountability'
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya speaking at the 30th anniversarycelebrations of the Constitutional Court. The judiciary in South Africa often conducts itself as though it exists outside the moral and political realities of the society it serves, projecting an image of unassailable integrity, as if immune to the corruption that permeates other sectors, says the writer. Image: Jairus Mmutle/GCIS Clyde N.S. Ramalaine In democratic theory, the judiciary is often revered as the last line of defence against tyranny, arbitrariness, and impunity. Yet in practice, no institution should be considered immune to the social and political decay it adjudicates. The recent response by the Office of Chief Justice Mandisa Maya to explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, offers a revealing window into the judiciary's posture when confronted with internal accountability. Rather than welcoming scrutiny as a path to institutional purification, the OCJ's letter adopts a tone of cold proceduralism and veiled indignation, positioning itself as the aggrieved party in the face of whistleblowing. This reaction, cloaked in appeals to public confidence and formal reporting channels, exposes a deeper and more precarious trend: a judiciary increasingly allergic to critique, retreating into a defensive reflex that masquerades as integrity. In this regard, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya appears to continue the defensive trajectory set by her predecessor, former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, who became increasingly known for his political interventions, particularly in moments when critical public commentary about the judiciary was raised. Zondo notably demanded an apology from politician Lindiwe Sisulu after she exercised poetic licence in her critique of the judiciary, drawing on a provocative phrase borrowed from American racial discourse, 'house and field niggers', to characterise perceived divisions and loyalties within South Africa's judicial ranks. The response by the Office of Chief Justice Mandisa Maya to Lt. General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's allegations is revealing, less for what it explicitly states and more for the posture it adopts. At face value, the OCJ's demand for 'credible evidence' and its warning that 'unsubstantiated claims can severely erode public confidence' in democratic institutions appear procedurally sound and appropriately cautious. However, when situated within the broader political climate and the weight of the allegations, this letter reads more like a strategic act of institutional defensiveness than a sincere commitment to truth-seeking or democratic transparency. The judiciary, by asserting that such allegations 'erode public confidence,' effectively reverses the burden, indirectly attempting to discipline the whistleblower rather than reflect critically on the legitimacy of the concerns raised. This is problematic. Mkhwanazi did not offer vague or populist sentiment; he made direct claims about the dismantling of police investigative structures and the shielding of political interests, naming Minister Senzo Mchunu and implicating parts of the justice system. These are not casual assertions; they are whistleblowing interventions made by a senior law enforcement officer in a context of systemic rot. The OCJ office will forgive us for deducing from its letter that the judiciary's tone, however, appears less concerned with institutional accountability than with preserving its image. Moreover, the suggestion that Mkhwanazi must use "formal reporting mechanisms" reveals an ironic detachment from the very reality he is exposing. If the allegation is that formal structures themselves are compromised, what good is a reporting mechanism that routes evidence through those same channels? This response seems to ignore the foundational lesson from South Africa's recent history of state capture: whistleblowers often had to go public precisely because formal structures had become captured, bureaucratised, or unresponsive. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Additionally, the judiciary's statement fails to acknowledge its embeddedness within a broader political system. It repeats the often-invoked but increasingly hollow idea of judicial impartiality, positioning the courts as neutral custodians of justice while ignoring the growing public scepticism about the politicisation of judicial appointments, inconsistent prosecutorial outcomes, and institutional inertia in high-profile cases. If the judiciary wishes to preserve public trust, it must do more than demand silence in the absence of documentation; it must demonstrate that it takes all allegations seriously, not just those that are politically convenient. Finally, the tone of the letter, couched in institutional concern, belies a deeper anxiety. The judiciary, like all organs of state, is not beyond scrutiny. South Africa's democratic ethos does not grant sacred status to any sector. Rather than deflect, the judiciary should embrace the opportunity to investigate itself, to reaffirm its legitimacy through transparency, and to actively protect whistleblowers like Mkhwanazi, whose bravery may be unsettling but whose voice is necessary. To underscore the judiciary as the full expression of a South African society, we only have to remind ourselves of a recent interview conducted by the Judicial Services Commission. Judge President L.T. Tlaletsi, during his recent appearance before the Judicial Service Commission, initially downplayed the relevance of the judiciary's newly developed sexual harassment policy by suggesting that sexual harassment was not a significant issue within the judiciary. However, his stance was swiftly challenged by Commissioner Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, who pointed out the glaring dissonance in such a claim. Ngcukaitobi highlighted that everyone present at the proceedings was well aware of incidents of inappropriate and unacceptable conduct among members of the judiciary, even if such cases had not been formally reported. This exchange not only revealed a concerning gap between leadership perception and institutional reality but also underscored the culture of silence that often surrounds misconduct in judicial spaces. If sexual harassment, despite its denial, is indeed present, then it becomes even more untenable to suggest that the judiciary is immune to other forms of wrongdoing, such as corruption and criminal collusion. The moment served as a powerful reminder that institutional integrity cannot be preserved through denial or procedural formalism but through transparent acknowledgement, accountability, and reform. The judiciary in South Africa often conducts itself as though it exists outside the moral and political realities of the society it serves, projecting an image of unassailable integrity, as if immune to the corruption that permeates other sectors. This perception is not only misleading but fundamentally unsustainable. Judges are not chosen from a separate moral universe; they are products of the same society, appointed through political processes, often by ruling party leaders. Many have never built independent or successful legal practices, opting instead for judicial office as a stable career path offering pension security. Their elevation depends on interviews before the Judicial Service Commission, an inherently political body. In a country where corruption is endemic and where no institution is beyond scrutiny, the notion that the judiciary is somehow exempt from compromise defies logic and reality. When Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi bravely tells the nation that politicians, the police, and the judiciary form part of South Africa's crime problem, it goes without saying that, as an admitted attorney, he would not make such serious allegations recklessly or without a substantive basis. It is therefore untenable for the public to be duped into imagining the judiciary, a present and functioning sector of society, as somehow exempt from such implications. On the contrary, any such allegation, regardless of the target, warrants full and impartial investigation. To shield the judiciary from public accountability based on presumed moral superiority is to ignore its embeddedness in the very social fabric it is meant to adjudicate. If transformation and transparency are to be pursued meaningfully, the judiciary cannot be treated as sacrosanct. The critical question remains: Does the OCJ's response genuinely inspire confidence in whistleblowers like Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi, or does it serve as a warning to future truth-tellers to remain silent? By focusing on the supposed dangers of "unsubstantiated allegations" rather than the urgent substance of Mkhwanazi's claims, the judiciary appears more concerned with reputational management than institutional accountability. This defensive posture not only undermines Mkhwanazi's credibility but also sends a discouraging signal to others within the state apparatus who may be privy to corruption or criminal collusion. If the judiciary cannot distinguish between malicious slander and principled whistleblowing, especially from a senior officer with legal training, then it risks reinforcing a culture of fear, deterring future disclosures, and eroding the very democratic values it claims to protect. I dare assert the statement issued by the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) does little to inspire confidence in Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi, or in any future whistleblowers who may come forward with uncomfortable truths about systemic corruption. Rather than signalling a willingness to engage the substance of Mkhwanazi's claims with seriousness and impartiality, the OCJ adopts a defensive tone that shifts focus to the potential damage of "unsubstantiated allegations" on public trust. This framing subtly disciplines the whistleblower while evading institutional introspection. Instead of reinforcing a culture of accountability, the OCJ's response risks entrenching the very culture of silence and fear that has long discouraged insiders from exposing misconduct. If the judiciary responds to courageous disclosures with procedural gatekeeping and implied censure, it sends a chilling message to potential whistleblowers: speak out, and you will be met with institutional rebuke, not support. Such a stance is fundamentally at odds with the values of transparency, justice, and democratic renewal. South Africa does not need another mythologised sector draped in self-righteous untouchability. If the judiciary is to maintain public confidence, it must do so not through declarations of purity but through demonstrable transparency and an unwavering commitment to introspection. When Lt. General Mkhwanazi calls out institutional decay, including within the justice system, the appropriate institutional response is not deflection or bureaucratic indignation, but a willingness to interrogate uncomfortable truths. Just as the judiciary cannot claim to be free from the scourge of sexual harassment, as the recent exchange between Judge President Tlaletsi and Commissioner Ngcukaitobi made clear, so too can it not claim exemption from the possibilities of corruption, bias, or systemic failure. Public trust is not sustained by denial, but by the courage to confront complicity. To restore what remains of that trust, the judiciary must accept that its integrity is not innate; it must be earned, preserved, and proven through fearless accountability. * Clyde N.S. Ramalaine is a theologian, political analyst, lifelong social and economic justice activist, published author, poet, and freelance writer. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Trust in police at all time low
The Human Sciences Research Council's (HSRC) revealed that only 22% of the citizens trust the police. Image: Armand Hough/Independent Newspapers ONLY 22% of citizens trust the police, representing the lowest level of trust in 27 years, according to the Human Sciences Research Council's (HSRC). Their study released this week, days after KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi lifted the lid on the alleged malfeasance in SAPS, which also implicates Police Minister Senzo Mchunu who has since been placed on special leave. Mkhwanazi also implicated senior SAPS officials in corruption during his recent media briefing, claiming police have failed to act on evidence tying firearms to high-profile killings, including those of prominent South African artists. He accused Mchunu of sabotaging critical crime-fighting efforts by ordering the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team, a unit established in 2018. Mkhwanazi alleged that Mchunu, in collaboration with Deputy Commissioner General Shadrack Sibiya, withdrew 121 case dockets from the team, leaving them untouched at SAPS headquarters in Pretoria, despite five being ready for arrests. He also claimed that Mchunu was in constant communication with criminal syndicates, naming a businessman, Vusimuzi 'Cat' Matlala, and an associate, Mr Brown Mogotsi (also referred to as Mahodi or Maki in various statements), as key players funding Mchunu's political activities. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Sibiya, like Mchunu was placed on special leave Tuesday as Mkhwanazi's allegations now form part of a judicial commission of inquiry to be headed by acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga. The HSRC survey also found that well-publicised instances of police abuse or failure can also seem to reduce public confidence, while perceptions of police corruption also had a strong, negative effect on police confidence. Mkhwanazi's allegations represent another decisive moment for policing in South Africa, the outcome of which will have a significant bearing on the project to rebuild public trust, said the HSRC. "Not once during this 27-year interval did more than half the adult public say that they trusted the police. This suggests that the issue of police legitimacy is by no means a new one. "Over the 1998 to 2010 period, the average level of trust in the police was relatively static. It ranged between 39% and 42% in all but a few years. This was followed by a sharp decline between 2011 and 2013, following the Marikana massacre of August 2012. However, confidence had almost returned to the 2011 level by the time of the 2015 survey round. The 2016 to 2020 period was characterised by modest fluctuation between 31% and 35%. The hard COVID-19 lockdown experience, which including instances of police brutality in enforcing lockdown regulations, did not appear to have had an aggregate effect on confidence levels based on the 2020 survey results." In 2021 public trust in the police dipped to a low of 27%, and the HSRC attributes this to the July 2021 social unrest. "This was followed by a further 5 percentage point decline to 22% in 2022, with the 2023 and 2024/25 confidence levels almost unchanged, which may reflect increasing rates for certain crimes. The 2022, 2023 and 2024/25 figures are the lowest recorded in 27 years." Experts said it was deeply concerning that the public's trust in police continues to decline. Independent crime and policing consultant, Dr Johna Burger, said the declining levels of trust and confidence in the SAPS over the last two decades were predictable, adding that the National Development Plan of 2012, Parliament's Detective Dialogue Report of September 2012 and the 2018 report by the Panel of Experts on how to strengthen and improve the SAPS are some of the reasons for this decline as none of the recommendations were implemented. 'The SAPS has, over the years, and in many instances, abused its own appointment and promotion policies, enabling them to appoint persons into senior positions for which they were not suitably qualified. The recent highly publicised appointment of a female brigadier from outside the police in Crime Intelligence is a good example." Cape Times
