Analysts have weighed in on former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo’s recent reflections about the emotional toll of presiding over South Africa’s controversial State Capture Commission, stating that it highlights challenges in South Africa’s anti-corruption efforts.

In a recent statement that has sparked widespread debate, Zondo expressed the emotional toll of presiding over South Africa’s controversial State Capture Commission. 

He reflected on the personal discomfort of swearing in officials implicated in corruption, including members of parliament, despite the damning evidence uncovered by the commission. 

His remarks come amid renewed scrutiny of the country’s efforts to combat systemic corruption and the efficacy of commissions of inquiry.

Speaking openly last week about his experiences, Zondo conveyed the pain of holding a position that, while vital for uncovering corruption, often resulted in uncomfortable realities. 

“I had to swear in Cabinet ministers who had serious state capture findings against them,” he said, highlighting his role’s moral and emotional complexity. 

Although the commission’s work was widely praised and criticised for its thoroughness, questions remain about the tangible outcomes of such investigations.

Analysts and academics have weighed in on Zondo’s sentiments, stating that commissions are, by design, investigative and advisory bodies rather than judicial authorities. 

Political analyst Dr Metjie Mkagoba, a senior lecturer at the University of Limpopo, explained, “The issue is that commissions like Zondo’s are meant to establish facts and make recommendations, not to deliver judgments or direct legal consequences.”

He further noted the disconnect between uncovering evidence and translating findings into action.

“We spend vast sums on these commissions… more than R1 billion in the case of the Zondo Commission, yet there’s often little follow-through regarding prosecution or systemic reform. That’s a fundamental challenge in our governance.”

Mkagoba pointed out that in South Africa, commissions are frequently used more for public humiliation than for delivering justice, often serving as a political tool rather than a pathway to accountability. 

“Commission reports can expose who is corrupt, but unless there is political will to act, those findings remain largely symbolic,” he said.

This sentiment echoes a 2024 Public Affairs Research Institute (PARI) report highlighting that the Zondo Commission’s recommendations are non-binding. 

The report states: “Implementation of the Commission’s recommendations is at the discretion of the President, and progress in Parliament has been slow and inconsistent.” 

It highlights the structural and political hurdles that hinder translating investigative findings into concrete legal actions.

The timing of Zondo’s comments coincides with renewed efforts to address police corruption, notably President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent announcement of a new commission to investigate allegations of organised crime involving top police officials and politicians, after General Lieutenant Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi made the revelation. 

In response, Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said, “The former chief justice has had access to the president whenever there were matters of concern to be discussed.”

Meanwhile, critics argue that South Africa’s approach to corruption remains fragmented. While commissions like Zondo’s have shed light on widespread misconduct, the lack of follow-up action diminishes their overall impact.

Mkagoba lamented, “We need to move beyond investigations and ensure that political will and legal processes work hand-in-hand to hold perpetrators accountable.”

thabo.makwakwa@inl.co.za

IOL Politics

Source link