Parliament’s failure has allowed corruption to flourish and left a nation betrayed

The Zondo Commission delivered a damning verdict on Parliament’s failure to hold the executive and state institutions accountable during the State Capture era. Instead of acting as a constitutional safeguard, Parliament too often stood by while corruption flourished, institutions were hollowed out and public trust was betrayed.

Years later, South Africans are entitled to ask whether much has changed. Let me explain.

For communities plagued by drugs, extortion, kidnappings and violent crime, the persistence of these problems is not an abstract policy issue. It is a daily reality. For taxpayers, the question is simple: Why do the architects and beneficiaries of organised criminality continue to enjoy apparent impunity?

Recent allegations emerging from affidavits filed in litigation connected to the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry provide a troubling basis for reflection.

The allegations suggest that certain political figures, business interests and senior law-enforcement officials may have cultivated relationships that blurred the lines between public office, political influence and private enrichment. If proven, they would reveal not isolated misconduct, but a system in which political power and law-enforcement authority were leveraged for mutual benefit.

Particularly concerning are allegations involving EFF leader Julius Malema, businessman Mohammad Sayed and suspended crime intelligence deputy head Major-General Feroz Khan.

According to the court filings released by the commission, Khan allegedly provided sensitive SAPS information relating to a complainant in a matter involving Malema. The same material alleges that parliamentary processes were utilised to advance initiatives aligned with Khan’s interests and that political support was mobilised on his behalf during disciplinary proceedings.

Compromised by networks of influence

These allegations remain untested. Yet they raise an uncomfortable question: How many of SA’s institutions have been compromised by networks of influence operating beyond public scrutiny?

The allegations take on added significance in light of reports that Malema opposed efforts to have Khan appear before Parliament’s ad hoc committee investigating the allegations raised by Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi last year that led to the establishment of the Madlanga Commission.

Given the serious claims now emerging through aborted litigation against the commission, it is legitimate to ask whether preventing Khan’s appearance had the effect of shielding him from parliamentary scrutiny at a critical juncture.

The court filings also paint a picture of what appears to have been a mutually beneficial relationship. On the one hand, Khan is alleged to have used his access to sensitive police information for Malema’s benefit. On the other hand, Malema is alleged to have used his position as a Member of Parliament to advance initiatives aligned with Khan and his benefactors’ interests.

Whether the client is an alleged cigarette smuggler, a taxi mafia operative, a tenderpreneur or a wayward senior police officer, Malema appears to have developed a remarkable knack for finding himself at the intersection of political influence and shady private interests.

The VBS scandal remains one of the most brazen acts of corruption in democratic SA. Billions of rand intended to serve poor communities were looted. Municipal funds vanished. Public trust was shattered.

Former VBS chairperson Tshifhiwa Matodzi, in his plea agreement, implicated Malema and his then deputy Floyd Shivambu in receiving payments disguised as donations to the EFF. Both have denied wrongdoing.

Yet years later, South Africans are still waiting for a satisfactory explanation as to why so few politically connected individuals have faced meaningful criminal consequences.

Poor people were robbed to finance the greed and excesses of a connected elite. The VBS looting allegedly bankrolled lavish lifestyles, political influence and personal enrichment, while ordinary depositors and communities were left to pick up the pieces.

Impunity

Years later, many victims are still waiting for restitution, much of the money remains unrecovered, and key figures implicated in the scandal have yet to face meaningful consequences. That is not justice – it is impunity.

The implications extend far beyond VBS.

If the allegations against Khan are true, they strike at the heart of witness and whistleblower protection. If a senior law-enforcement official can allegedly access confidential SAPS records and disclose a complainant’s identity and address to politically connected individuals, it raises grave concerns about the safety of whistleblowers, witnesses, complainants and investigators.

Such conduct would deter citizens from reporting corruption and organised crime, undermining confidence in the entire criminal justice system.

Equally troubling is Parliament’s apparent failure to fulfil its constitutional mandate. Parliament exists to hold the executive accountable and safeguard the public interest. It was never intended to serve as a platform through which political influence could be exercised on behalf of individuals facing scrutiny or disciplinary action.

South Africans are entitled to ask difficult questions.

Why do illicit cigarette syndicates continue to flourish while the fiscus loses billions in revenue?

Why do organised criminal networks appear capable of infiltrating state institutions?

Why do kidnapping syndicates continue to operate with such sophistication?

Why do politically exposed persons so often appear insulated from accountability?

The answer may not lie solely within the underworld. It may also lie within the corridors of political power, where oversight is neglected, accountability is resisted and institutions are manipulated to serve interests other than those of the public.

Systematically compromised

From an impeached senior judge and a disgraced former Public Protector, to a convicted Member of Parliament serving on the Judicial Service

Commission, and politicians heavily implicated in State Capture and other serious corruption scandals, SA’s accountability architecture has been systematically compromised. It is little wonder that criminal syndicates appear to have politicians on speed dial.

When those entrusted with overseeing the state are themselves implicated in wrongdoing, organised crime does not need to evade the system – it simply recruits from within it.

The tragedy of SA is not merely that corruption occurred. It is that corruption is allowed to flourish because too many institutions fail to perform their constitutional duties.

SA does not suffer from a shortage of laws. It suffers from a shortage of accountability.

Until politically connected individuals and corrupt law enforcement officials are investigated without fear or favour, prosecuted where evidence warrants it, and held accountable regardless of status or influence, public confidence in the criminal justice system will continue to deteriorate.

The rule of law cannot coexist with selective accountability. Nor can democracy thrive where power shields the powerful from consequences.

That is the lesson of State Capture. It would be a national tragedy if we failed to learn it. DM