{
  "id": 15918548,
  "title": "AMABHUNGANE: Openness or secrecy: media and evidence leaders square off at Madlanga Commission",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/21/amabhungane-openness-or-secrecy-media-and-evidence-leaders-square-off",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-10-21T17:26:52.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Daily Maverick",
    "slug": "daily-maverick",
    "url": "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-10-21-openness-or-secrecy-media-and-evidence-leaders-square-off-at-madlanga-commission/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The Madlanga Commission recently gathered to discuss the issue of whether attorney Dr Ntandazo Sifolo, the Acting Coordinator of the National Intelligence Coordinating Committee (NICOC), should testify in camera or in public. The two sides, representing evidence leaders and media organizations, presented arguments that differed greatly.\n\nEvidence leaders insisted that Dr Sifolo's testimony concerns classified reports on organized crime infiltration and therefore, it must be heard in total secrecy. These leaders argued that the classified information includes National Intelligence Estimates, Intelligence Briefs, and Special Reports, which deal with the infiltration of criminal justice system by organized crime syndicates. They claimed that any public disclosure of such information could threaten national security and constitutional order.\n\nThe media, on the other hand, argued for less restrictive measures. Media houses amaBhungane, News24, and Daily Maverick opposed NICOC's suggestion for blanket secrecy. They contended that it would be unjust to assume that Dr Sifolo should testify on his own terms. They emphasized that in the democratic constitutional era, secrecy must be justified, not assumed.\n\nAdvocate Ben Winks, representing the media, suggested a less restrictive regime. He proposed that Dr Sifolo's evidence be heard in public, except for the passages containing security-sensitive materials. He also suggested redacting names of operatives, persons of interest, and dates/locations of specific operations, replacing them with codenames for oral evidence. This would still allow the public to have insight into the core subject of the commission, without compromising national security.\n\nHowever, evidence leader's attorney Matthew Chaskalson argued that the commission doesn't have the power to override the classification regime imposed by Dr Sifolo. He pointed out that only a high court could vary the secrecy imposed by the classification of the documents. Chaskalson also mentioned that there is no clear law governing the classification/declassification of confidential documents in South Africa, other than the Minimum Information Security Standards.\n\nThe judgment from Justice Madlanga, on whether Dr Sifolo should testify in camera or in public, will be delivered electronically, after considering the arguments presented by both sides.",
  "summary": "Evidence leaders are desperate to put intelligence coordinator Dr Ntandazo Sifolo on the stand. They argue his testimony concerns classified reports on organised crime infiltration and can only be heard in total secrecy. Three media houses argue that less restrictive measures are possible and necessary.",
  "key_points": [
    "Evidence leaders demand secrecy for Dr Sifolo's classified testimony",
    "Media advocates for public hearing with redacted sensitive information",
    "Judge Madlanga to decide on Dr Sifolo's testimony format"
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}