Rethinking The Value Of Commissions

In South Africa’s public discourse, commissions of inquiry are often portrayed as fruitless, costly spectacles and elaborate talk shops that generate headlines rather than justice. 

They are dismissed as exercises in delay that produce volumes of paper but little justice. It is a bold assertion made with conviction that cannot withstand evidential scrutiny.

An honest examination of the historical record, particularly the work of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, commonly known as the Zondo Commission, demonstrates that commissions of inquiry have delivered substantial returns.

When measured against financial recoveries, prosecutions, legislative amendments and institutional reforms that have been implemented, the narrative that commissions deliver no tangible value collapses under the weight of the evidence.

Any objective analysis must proceed from the premise that commissions of inquiry are not criminal courts. They neither prosecute nor sentence. Their constitutional purpose is to establish facts, identify systemic weaknesses and recommend structural changes.

They operate at the front end of accountability. To judge them by outcomes beyond their mandate misunderstands their role. 

Their success must therefore be assessed not by whether they themselves secure convictions but by whether their findings catalyse recoveries, prosecutions and reform. By that measure, the record is substantial.

The most prominent example in recent history is the Zondo Commission. Established amid grave allegations that public institutions had been repurposed to serve private interests, it conducted extensive hearings during four years and produced a report mapping, in forensic detail, how procurement processes were manipulated, how boards were captured and how law enforcement institutions were weakened deliberately. 

Its work directly informed investigations and prosecutions by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), including the establishment and strengthening of its Investigating Directorate to focus on complex corruption cases.

Asset recovery has followed. The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has pursued civil claims and recovered significant funds linked to irregular contracts identified during the state capture era. 

More than R16 billion has been recovered or returned to the state through the work of the SIU, the Asset Forfeiture Unit and the South African Revenue Service (Sars). 

Further billions linked to state capture remain under restraint or preservation orders, secured by court processes pending forfeiture. Against an estimated commission cost of roughly R1 billion, recoveries alone have already exceeded expenditure several times over, even before pending matters are finalised. 

Asset recovery in corruption cases is complex, technical and almost always contested. Yet it is clearly underway.

Beyond financial recovery, the commission made more than 200 criminal investigation referrals. Several matters have resulted in guilty verdicts and sentences in corruption- and fraud-related cases linked to evidence uncovered during the inquiry. 

Other cases are at advanced stages of investigation and trial preparation. Complex corruption litigation, particularly where racketeering, transnational financial flows and procurement manipulation are involved, requires meticulous preparation to meet criminal standards of proof. 

The enrolment and progression of these matters reflect significant progress, even if some misread this complex legal process as stagnation.

The inquiry exposed weaknesses in the state’s capacity to investigate and prosecute complex corruption. In response, the government established a permanent Investigating Directorate Against Corruption within the NPA, with enhanced powers and dedicated resources to pursue high-level corruption. This restructuring directly addresses vulnerabilities revealed during the state capture period.

The commission identified gaps in corporate accountability, noting that existing frameworks made it difficult to hold companies criminally liable where corruption was embedded in organisational practice. 

Legislative amendments have strengthened corporate criminal liability, requiring companies to demonstrate that adequate preventative measures were in place or risk prosecution.

Amendments to company legislation have also strengthened provisions relating to delinquent directors, extending timeframes and enhancing the ability to bar individuals from serving in governance roles where misconduct occurred. At major state-owned enterprises such as Eskom and Transnet, board reconstitutions, procurement reforms and strengthened audit oversight were informed directly by evidence presented before the commission.

The commission’s recommendations have generated significant legislative momentum. Proposals to strengthen whistle-blower protection, enhance procurement transparency and entrench a more permanent anti-corruption architecture derive directly from its blueprint.

Our history reflects a consistent trajectory in which commissions of inquiry have shaped South Africa’s democratic evolution. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) did not function as a criminal court and did not imprison the architects of apartheid. 

That was never its mandate. Its achievement lay in documenting gross human rights violations, offering victims acknowledgement and establishing a shared historical record. It altered the moral and political landscape and shaped a framework for restorative justice. It has since become a global reference point for transitional justice.

The Farlam Commission examined the tragic events at Marikana. Its findings informed reforms in public order policing, compensation mechanisms and labour relations oversight. In each instance, commissions clarified systemic fault lines and enabled policy correction.

Over the years, other commissions have addressed aviation safety, public health failures, intelligence oversight and municipal governance crises. Their measurable outputs were reports and recommendations but their measurable outcomes included policy shifts, legislative amendments, administrative reform and at times, prosecutions.

Critics often focus narrowly on cost, as though expenditure alone determines value. That reasoning is economically and constitutionally incomplete. State capture is estimated to have cost the country hundreds of billions of rand in lost growth, weakened infrastructure and diminished investor confidence. 

The cost of establishing a comprehensive factual record and enabling recovery is modest when weighed against the scale of harm. Without structured, independent investigation, evidence remains fragmented, institutional failure goes unexamined and reform becomes directionless. The expenditure on the Zondo Commission represents a fraction of the losses it helped to recover and prevent.

The question is not whether commissions are perfect instruments. They are not. No instrument is. The question is whether a constitutional democracy can afford to dispense with rigorous and independent investigation when systemic corruption is alleged.

Billions recovered, assets preserved, prosecutions enrolled, convictions secured, laws amended and institutions strengthened provide a clear answer.

Democratic resilience is not demonstrated by the absence of scandal but by the capacity to confront wrongdoing transparently and strengthen accountability. Commissions of inquiry transform suspicion into evidence and evidence into a firm basis for reform and accountability.

Commissions also serve as platforms of civic education. Millions of South Africans followed the Zondo hearings and saw how procurement rules can be manipulated, how oversight can fail and how governance can be restored. 

This exposure strengthens democratic literacy and reaffirms that no office-bearer is beyond scrutiny. The fact that a sitting president, senior ministers, executives and business leaders could be summoned and questioned under oath signalled that constitutional mechanisms remain operative.

Critics often lack patience. They cannot acknowledge that accountability in complex corruption cases unfolds over years. Prosecutions must meet standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

Civil recovery must survive appeal. To demand instant gratification from constitutional processes mistakes democratic governance for political grandstanding. Commissions are foundational stages in a longer chain of accountability. They are catalysts for reform, not endpoints.

Commissions of inquiry are not perfect but they remain indispensable. A democracy that refuses to interrogate itself corrodes from within. A democracy that subjects itself to rigorous, independent inquiry affirms its constitutional character.

In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, truth and transparency are investments in institutional credibility and legitimacy.

The Zondo Commission produced a detailed factual record of systemic corruption, informed prosecutions and recoveries, catalysed institutional reform and strengthened public oversight. 

Other commissions reshaped national memory, policing doctrine and governance frameworks.

The dominant narrative that commissions are futile exercises designed by the executive to deflect pressure cannot be sustained in light of empirical examination.

Cornelius Monama is a public servant. He writes in his personal capacity (X: @cmonama)