Madlanga Commission draws comparisons with Zondo over cost and accountability

As South Africa grapples with the high costs and complex legacy of the Zondo Commission, the ongoing Madlanga Commission offers a stark contrast in terms of efficacy. While the Zondo inquiry was often criticized as a costly, drawn-out process, some critics labeled it as more of a political spectacle than a mechanism for justice.

Established last year in response to allegations of criminality, political interference, and corruption within the criminal justice system, the Madlanga Commission has been frequently compared to the Zondo Commission, which probed state capture from 2018 to 2022. In September 2025, the Justice and Constitutional Development Department estimated the Madlanga Commission's preliminary cost at R147.8 million, which was later included in the 2025 Adjusted Estimates of National Expenditure by the National Treasury.

IRS Forensic Investigations CEO Chad Thomas emphasized the necessity of spending on Madlanga, stating that the money is there, in contrast to Zondo, which cost a billion rand and involved multiple extensions. Thomas highlighted that the Special Investigating Unit's recovered funds benefit the fiscus and are returned to the departments from which they were stolen through the Criminal Assets Recovery Account (CARA).

CARA serves two purposes: restorative justice and financial restitution for crime victims, and the recovery of laundered money by criminals for crime-fighting initiatives. Thomas noted that if CARA is managed effectively, clawback mechanisms can fully utilize the Asset Forfeiture Unit within the National Prosecuting Authority, allowing for the funding of Madlanga Commission-related costs.

Comparing the Zondo and Madlanga commissions, Thomas pointed out that while Zondo was initially seen as the silver bullet, Madlanga's investigations are happening in parallel to Zondo's proceedings. With two reports received by the president and a third pending, Thomas mentioned that immediate accountability measures have been triggered.

Political analyst Bheki Mngomezulu from Nelson Mandela University criticized commissions for lacking prosecutorial powers, focusing instead on evidence collection, report compilation, and recommendation-making. Mngomezulu deemed the Zondo Commission's R1 billion investment ineffective, contrasting its outcomes with Madlanga's real-time results, such as arrests and resignations, which demonstrate a strong commitment to accountability.

Unlike Zondo's more relaxed atmosphere, Mngomezulu praised Madlanga for its rigorous pursuit of the truth, crediting Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's decisive media briefing for this progress. Professor Sipho Seepe, also a political analyst, contrasted the two inquiries, describing Zondo as a biased political instrument marred by Zondo's refusal to recuse himself and reliance on hearsay.

In contrast, Seepe credits Madlanga with restoring public faith through a rigorous, evidence-based approach that prioritizes factual inquiry over the political spectacle of its predecessor, questioning the defensibility of the expenditure on the Zondo Commission.