Between Commissions of Enquiry and Direct Prosecution: Quo Vadis, South Africa?

Abstract

South Africa has had its fair share of allegations of corrupt activities within the public sector. Consequently, numerous commissions of enquiries have been established to investigate matters of public interest. The most recent is the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State (hereinafter the “Zondo Commission”) established in 2018 with investigative powers. R1 billion later, the Commission completed and compiled its findings in 2022/23 which contained a plethora of evidence. Despite the enormous evidence gathered by the Commission as with other Commissions before it, prosecution and conviction have been minimal. However, some of the Commission’s findings have been challenged or subjected to judicial review. The huge costs of these commissions, the sluggish nature of prosecution and convictions, and the high ratio of challenges to their findings invite the question of their effectiveness and necessity. Against this backdrop, the article argues that the government needs to redirect the resources it invests in these commissions of enquiry into strengthening the existing investigating institutions and the prosecuting authority. It is argued that the ultimate effect of any investigation into any wrongdoing should be the vindication of those who have been wronged and the restoration of what has been lost. This can be best achieved when the country has a capacitated prosecuting authority, that can thoroughly investigate and an independent judiciary which is the ultimate guardian of South Africa’s constitutional democracy. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to the advocacy for the strengthening of institutions that are designed to uphold the rule of law in South Africa.

Keywords

• rule of law
• commission of enquiry
• prosecuting authority
• institutional independence
• political interference
• judiciary
• south africa