The slow progress in implementing the recommendations of the Zondo commission of inquiry into state capture, and the lack of analysis into the reasons why, call for a rethink of the monitoring of what happens at the end of a public inquiry.
It is important because public inquiries have become a common feature of governance in SA. They cost a lot of money too. Public inquiries can serve a useful purpose in establishing what went wrong, who should be held accountable for it, and what lessons can be learnt from the incident. But they can be tricky too, because they sit uncomfortably in the zone between politics and the justice system.
This means they can be used by politicians to deflate political pressure and, to borrow the words of the UK’s House of Lords, “kick a problem into the long grass”. They can be used this way because, depending on the complexity of the issues involved, some inquiries can take a long time to set up and complete.
Then there is the problem of implementation of an inquiry’s recommended remedial actions, whether they be changes to public policies or other steps. These actions are often halted by a country’s sluggish administrative and political machinery.
These are important issues for the public and the political office-bearers to consider as SA heads into yet another judicial commission of inquiry, this time into criminality, political interference and corruption in the criminal justice system. It is headed by justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga.
The Madlanga commission’s terms of reference include a clause that states that the commission’s recommendations shall include those “that can be immediately actioned based on the commission’s work as at that date”. But as we know from experience with the recommendations of the Zondo state capture inquiry, “immediately” has a different meaning in politics. Zondo submitted his final report to President Cyril Ramaphosa in June 2022 and Ramaphosa published his responses to parliament in October that year.
Of the 60 steps Ramaphosa promised to take, only 11 (18%) had been completed by end-March 2025. A further 18 (30%) are ticked as complete “but additional work must be undertaken”. To camouflage this weak performance the presidency lumps these two numbers together and punts a 48% achievement.
What’s worrying about the presidency’s reporting on the progress government has made in implementing Zondo’s recommendations is a lack of analysis of what has delayed faster implementation.
Full implementation of the recommendations by a public inquiry serves two purposes. It can help reduce the risk of recurrence of a disaster or incident, and it can enhance public trust in inquiries as an avenue for dealing with major failures of public policy.
In a recent report the House of Lords, the UK’s upper house of parliament, makes a case for implementation monitoring to be done by the chair of the inquiry. This approach has many advantages, primarily because the chair of the inquiry “will have a deep knowledge of exactly what the report recommends”. The personal qualities and reputation that commended them to the role of chair in the first place would also serve them well as an implementation monitor.
The challenge is that once the inquiry has completed its work there is no mechanism for funding a secretariat to support the chair through research, policy, communications or secretarial support to undertake implementation monitoring.
Given the experience with the Zondo commission recommendations, it may not be too late to enable Madlanga to track the progress of his recommendations.
• Sikhakhane, a former spokesperson for the finance minister, National Treasury and SA Reserve Bank, is editor of The Conversation Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.