Zondo exposed the corruption; now Madlanga is closing the net

The Zondo Commission spent four years exposing the architecture of State Capture, producing more than 5,000 pages of findings implicating Cabinet ministers, senior public servants, politicians and businesspeople in systemic corruption.

Yet, years after its final report was handed to President Cyril Ramaphosa, many of those implicated have neither been charged nor brought to trial. Some remain in public office, including in Parliament.

The Madlanga Commission has taken a markedly different course. Within months of its first hearings, evidence before the commission has been followed by suspensions, dismissals, arrests, criminal prosecutions and disciplinary action, all while the inquiry is still under way.

Only three significant criminal convictions have flowed directly from evidence uncovered by the Zondo Commission:

Daniel Mthimkhulu, former head of engineering of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment in September 2024 after being convicted of three counts of fraud for falsifying his academic qualifications.

Angelo Agrizzi, former Bosasa chief operating officer, received a 40-year sentence wholly suspended for five years under a plea agreement after admitting to four corruption-related offences.

Vincent Smith, former ANC MP and chairperson of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in March 2026 after entering a plea and sentence agreement with the State.

Although convictions have been few, investigations flowing from the Zondo Commission’s findings have recovered more than R16-billion in stolen state assets and unpaid taxes, including R11-billion through direct asset recoveries. Against the commission’s cost of about R1-billion, these recoveries ­represent a significant financial return.

The comparison with the Madlanga Commission raises an uncomfortable question: why has one inquiry become the definitive record of State Capture, whereas the other appears to be translating evidence into visible accountability?

Professor Kholofelo Rakubu, a criminologist at the Tshwane University of Technology, says the lack of prosecutions during the Zondo years created what criminologists describe as an “accountability gap”, the ­widening distance between exposing alleged criminality and enforcing consequences.

“When that gap becomes too wide,” Rakubu argues, “public confidence in deterrence declines because citizens begin to believe that politically connected offenders are effectively beyond the reach of the law.”

Why were the two commissions established?

The Zondo Commission almost never ­happened: then president Jacob Zuma, aware it would investigate him, took the Public Protector’s State of Capture report to court in a bid to avoid setting it up. That bid failed. On 14 December 2017, the high court ruled that the Public Protector’s remedial action was binding and ordered Zuma to appoint a judge chosen by the Chief Justice to head the inquiry.

Complying with the order, Zuma announced the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture – later known as the Zondo Commission – on 9 January 2018. Its mandate was to investigate allegations that the Gupta family and their associates had captured key state institutions, influenced executive appointments, manipulated procurement and diverted public resources.

South Africa has been trying since 2022 to extradite Atul and Rajesh Gupta after their arrest in the United Arab Emirates.

Over four years, the commission heard hundreds of witnesses and produced six reports spanning more than 5,000 pages, detailing the architecture of State Capture and recommending numerous investigations, prosecutions and institutional reforms.

The Madlanga Commission was born out of a different crisis. It followed explosive allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi on 6 July 2025, claiming organised crime had infiltrated the police, intelligence services, prosecuting authority and political leadership, while criminal investigations were deliberately obstructed.

Unlike Zondo, which examined largely historical allegations, Madlanga was established to investigate claims that criminal networks were actively influencing the country’s law ­enforcement institutions.

Truth recovery vs real-time accountability

Rakubu argues that the Zondo Commission’s achievements should not be measured by the number of arrests it produced, but rather by its reconstruction of the machinery of State Capture.

Its defining contribution, she said, was truth recovery: documenting how State Capture worked, exposing institutional failures and creating a record that continues to guide investigations and reform.

The Madlanga Commission, by contrast, is increasingly being judged on how quickly its evidence translates into suspensions, criminal investigations and prosecutions.

“Instead of evidence lying dormant until a final report is released, testimony emerging before the Madlanga Commission is being assessed by investigators, referred to specialised units and translated into operational decisions,” Rakubu said.

But she rejects any suggestion that Madlanga represents success whereas Zondo represents failure.

“The Madlanga Commission is operating within institutions that have already been exposed, reformed and strengthened largely because of the Zondo Commission.”

The terms of reference that changed the game For Judges Matter researcher Mbekezeli Benjamin, the contrasting outcomes of the two commissions begin with a fundamental difference: the rules under which they were created.

Although much of the debate has focused on political will and prosecutorial capacity, Benjamin argues that the Madlanga Commission’s terms of reference were crafted to encourage immediate intervention rather than wait for a final report.

“There are a number of factors that are likely leading to why we are seeing more immediate outcomes in the Madlanga Commission. These include the legal framework, the relatively narrow scope of the subject matter, and the role played by the chairperson, commissioners, investigators and evidence leaders,” he said.

For Benjamin, the legal framework is the decisive distinction. Unlike the Zondo ­Commission, Madlanga is empowered to recommend the precautionary suspension of officials, as well as criminal investigations and prosecutions, before the commission’s work is complete. It is required to submit interim reports rather than wait until the end of its mandate.

Interim reports have been followed by swift presidential action, including the creation of a dedicated SAPS task team that has driven many of the high-profile investigations and arrests.

After sitting for almost four years, the Zondo Commission delivered its final reports in a markedly different political ­climate. Much of the public pressure for accountability had dissipated.

Benjamin says, however, that the Zondo inquiry did produce tangible consequences while it was still sitting. Companies implicated in State Capture repaid billions of rands to state-owned entities, officials were dismissed, and both the Magistrates Commission and the Judicial Service Commission launched investigations into judicial officers before the inquiry had concluded.

Ultimately, Benjamin argues, the crucial difference lies in the commissions’ design.

Lessons from Zondo: why Madlanga was built differently

For University of Cape Town political scientist Zwelethu Jolobe, the Madlanga Commission is benefiting from lessons learnt during the Zondo era.

Unlike Zondo, Madlanga is investigating current allegations while operating alongside National Prosecuting Authority investigative capacity that is capable of acting immediately.

Jolobe argues that future commissions should ensure evidence is shared with investigators on a rolling basis instead of waiting for a final report. Witness protection should also be built into commissions.

The assassination of Marius van der Merwe, known as “Witness D”, after implicating suspended Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department (EMPD) deputy chief Julius Mkhwanazi, underscores the danger of exposing active criminal networks.

“Protection protocols need to be built in from day one, not improvised,” Jolobe said.

Van der Merwe was killed on 5 December 2025 outside his home in Gauteng. He
had testified on 14 November 2025 about alleged corruption, torture and cover-ups in the EMPD.

Van der Merwe testified that Mkhwanazi had ordered him to dispose of a suspect’s body. He complied by dumping the body in a dam in Nigel.

Jolobe also points to the transformation of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption into a permanent investigative body with a dedicated Digital Evidence Unit as a major institutional change.

“What Zondo lacked wasn’t questioning firepower so much as a parallel prosecutorial arm working in real time,” he added.

For anti-corruption ac­tivist Wayne Duvenage, who heads the Organisation Un­doing Tax Abuse, the outcomes of the two commissions expose a fundamental shift in how the state investigates corruption.

He says the Madlanga Commission was designed to work alongside law enforcement, not in isolation.

“[Justice Mbuyiseli] Madlanga has a bigger team supporting him, sharing the load of questioning and issues to be covered,” Duvenage said.

“Zondo was dealing with historical State Capture, while Madlanga is dealing with much fresher, here-and-now developments.”

Duvenage argues that Zondo nevertheless laid the foundations, leaving the criminal justice system better prepared.

For Duvenage, the defining difference is the SAPS Special Investigations Task Team, which has been running criminal investigations while the Madlanga Commission hears evidence.

Combined with Madlanga’s narrower focus, Duvenage says that structure has
enabled evidence to move directly into criminal investigations.

“The scale of Zondo in­evitably slowed the transition from evidence to prosecution. Madlanga was built not only to expose wrongdoing, but to feed evidence directly into ongoing criminal investigations,” he said. DM

Who’s Who on the Zondo Commission’s Untouched List of Adverse Finding

Years after the Zondo Commission concluded its work, many of the politicians and senior officials against whom it made adverse findings have yet to face trial. These are among the most prominent:

David Mahlobo: The commission recommended a criminal investigation into his alleged abuse of the State Security Agency. He remains deputy minister of water and sanitation and an ANC MP.

Nomvula Mokonyane: The commission found evidence warranting a criminal investigation into her relationship with Bosasa. She remains the ANC’s first deputy secretary-general.

Cedric Frolick: The commission recommended investigation of allegations that he received benefits from Bosasa. He denied wrongdoing and continues to serve as the National Assembly’s House chairperson for committees, oversight and public participation.

Gwede Mantashe: The commission found he breached the Executive Ethics Code over Bosasa-funded security upgrades to his home and recommended a criminal investigation. He remains minister of mineral and petroleum resources and ANC national chairperson.

Malusi Gigaba: The commission recommended the NPA consider prosecuting him for perjury after rejecting parts of his testimony. He has not been prosecuted on that recommendation. As of July 2026, Gigaba has been criminally charged, although not in relation to the Zondo Commission’s recommendation alleging perjury. ­Instead, he was added as an accused in the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption’s prosecution arising from the multibillion-rand Transnet locomotive procurement scandal.

Brian Molefe: Despite being ­heavily implicated in the commission’s findings, Molefe has not been charged in relation to matters arising from Zondo. He is, however, awaiting trial on separate Transnet corruption charges.

Matshela Koko: Although prominently implicated in the commission’s Eskom findings, he has not been convicted on matters arising from Zondo. Koko, his family and others accused of corruption are breathing a little easier after the Kusile corruption case was struck off the roll in November 2023, but the National Prosecuting Authority could reinstate charges.

Madlanga arrests, charges and dismissals

Twelve months after KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s explosive briefing on 6 July 2025, 13 police officers, including national commissioner General Fannie Masemola, are facing criminal charges, while 15 others are now subject to disciplinary proceedings.

Mkhwanazi alleged that senior officials, including then Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, were colluding with a criminal syndicate. Mchunu was subsequently placed on special leave and President Cyril Ramaphosa established the Madlanga Commission to investigate the allegations.

Central to the inquiry is the R228-million SAPS health services contract awarded to Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala’s company, Medicare24 Tshwane, in June 2024. The contract was cancelled in May 2025. Prosecutors allege Matlala bribed senior police officials to secure the tender. Masemola is charged with contravening the Public Finance Management Act, while his co-­accused face charges including corruption, fraud and money laundering.

The commission has also triggered major disciplinary action.

Among the most significant departures was suspended KwaZulu-Natal Hawks head Major General Lesetja Senona, who resigned on 26 June before disciplinary proceedings could begin, after the commission found prima facie evidence warranting a criminal investigation. Senona was questioned over the theft of R200-million of cocaine from a Hawks facility in 2021 and his dealings with Matlala.

The fallout extended beyond the Hawks. Brigadier Rachel Matjeng was dismissed following an internal disciplinary process linked to her relationship with Matlala. SAPS organised crime head Major General Richard Shibiri was dismissed in June.

The commission’s impact has also spread into local government.

Suspended Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department deputy chief Julius Mkhwanazi, former city manager Dr Imogen Mashazi, legal services head advocate Khemraj Behari and former HR head Linda Gxasheka face corruption charges linked to unlawful salary increases and the alleged obstruction of disciplinary processes.

In a separate criminal case linked to evidence before the commission, Mkhwanazi has also been implicated in the alleged theft of R14.9-million worth of precious stones.DM