By Johnathan Paoli
The Madlanga Commission opened with a procedural dispute on Monday as two leading media outlets formally opposed an application to hear a witness’s testimony behind closed doors.
The dispute over whether parts of the inquiry should proceed in camera has reignited the debate between transparency and confidentiality in one of South Africa’s most closely watched investigations.
During a procedural exchange before the commission, evidence leader and senior counsel, Advocate Matthew Chaskalson, proposed a timetable for written arguments to be filed by both sides before the end of the day.
“With our answer, we would file any written argument that we thought might assist the Commission, and we’ve asked Mr. Du Plessis if his team would similarly file any written argument by five. Certainly from the evidence leader’s side, we would be happy for the Commissioners to make a ruling on paper, communicate that to us, so that we could kick off with evidence tomorrow morning, be it in camera or out of camera,” Chaskalson said.
Advocate Charles Du Plessis of Willem de Klerk Attorneys, representing two media houses covering the commission, confirmed that his clients would oppose the current form of the application.
“We appear on behalf of News24 and Daily Maverick. We do have a mandate to oppose the granting of the order in the form that it currently takes. We will endeavour to have an answer with Mr. Chaskalson by 1 PM, and then we’d be in the hands of the Commissioners as to whether you would like to hear oral argument from us tomorrow,” Du Plessis said.
The commission, chaired by retired Constitutional Court Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, reconvened this morning after a week-long recess to deliberate on the request from evidence leaders to protect a witness expected to give sensitive testimony.
The evidence team contends that the information in question involves matters of national security and could endanger individuals if disclosed publicly.
But Du Plessis said that secrecy could undermine the public’s right to know and the integrity of the inquiry process.
Commission spokesperson Jeremy Michaels previously confirmed that the two media houses had been granted permission to file opposing submissions.
Madlanga suggested extending the filing deadline to ensure fairness.
“When we conferred before coming down here, we tentatively thought that we would give both sides 9 PM as time for the filing of written arguments,” he said.
While Chaskalson welcomed the additional time, Du Plessis said that his clients would likely be content with a written ruling, foregoing oral argument.
The decision could set a precedent for how the commission handles classified or sensitive evidence in future sessions.
Some reports indicate that the witness in question may have access to information linked to criminal investigations and internal intelligence operations, raising fears that open testimony could compromise law enforcement efforts.
The commission is probing allegations of criminality, political interference, and corruption within South Africa’s law enforcement and intelligence structures.
INSIDE POLITICS