Neelam Rahim | neelam@radioislam.co.za
3-minute read | 15 October 2025 | 13:45 CAT

📸 Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga presides over proceedings at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, as debates intensify over the decision to hold certain hearings behind closed doors. (Image: Frennie Shivambu/Gallo Images)

The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry into Corruption has sparked widespread concern following its decision to potentially hold in-camera hearings, a move critics warn could erode transparency and public trust. Two media houses have already filed objections against the order, arguing that secrecy in such a high-stakes inquiry undermines accountability.

The commission, chaired by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, adjourned proceedings to allow both the media and evidence leaders to submit written arguments on whether hearings should continue behind closed doors. The debate has reignited long-standing questions about the balance between national security and the public’s right to know.

Speaking to Radio Islam International, Media Monitoring Africa’s Director William Bird said that while there may be rare cases where private hearings are justified, the commission must be “clear and explicit” about its reasoning. “Given the issues at stake, given the role players, and given what we are learning about, the commissioner must take the public into his confidence,” Bird stated. “Otherwise, the process risks being seen as yet another attempt to shield powerful figures from scrutiny.”

Bird cautioned that secrecy could further deepen public suspicion toward the state and the South African Police Service, already marred by corruption scandals. “The moment you start shutting doors in a system already perceived as broken, you invite profound mistrust,” he said.

Drawing comparisons to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Zondo Commission, Bird underscored the importance of openness. “The purpose of these commissions was to allow South Africans to see and hear firsthand what went wrong to restore faith in justice,” he explained. “If this inquiry now retreats into the shadows, it risks undoing that fragile confidence.”

However, Bird noted that limited confidentiality could be justified if witnesses face genuine safety risks. “If someone believes their life is in danger, as we’ve seen in tragic cases like Babita Deokaran’s, then protecting their identity is understandable,” he said. “But the commission must still explain why and how that protection is applied.”

Bird also commended the South African media for its persistent role in uncovering corruption and upholding democratic accountability. “Without journalists bringing these cases to light, this commission wouldn’t even exist,” he remarked. “Despite resource constraints, the media continues to play an overwhelmingly positive role in ensuring transparency.”

As public scrutiny intensifies, all eyes remain on Justice Madlanga’s next move and whether the inquiry will prioritise openness or succumb to secrecy.

Listen to the full interview on The Daily Round-Up with Moulana Junaid Kharsany and William Bird.