By Johnathan Paoli
The Madlanga Commission has approved a tightly controlled system for hearing testimony from high-risk witnesses with sensitive information, allowing evidence to be presented anonymously through intermediaries while keeping live public access to proceedings.
At the start of Tuesday’s proceedings, chief evidence leader Advocate Matthew Chaskalson (SC) told commissioners that the “complicated arrangement” was designed to “maximise the public’s access to the commission and at the same time maximise the security of the witnesses”.
“What we have tried to achieve is a situation that both safeguards the witnesses and preserves the principle of open justice to the fullest extent possible.”
The agreement covers testimony that will be heard on Tuesday and Wednesday, as well as from Monday to Wednesday next week.
Discussions are ongoing about witnesses who are due to appear on Thursday and Friday, who will give evidence regarding ongoing criminal cases. The parties have until Wednesday lunchtime to settle that issue, failing which written arguments will be exchanged and a ruling handed down on Thursday morning.
Under the agreed structure, the witness testifying today and tomorrow will appear remotely from an undisclosed location, entirely off-camera.
To preserve anonymity, the witness’s face and voice will not be broadcast.
Instead, an evidence leader will act as an intermediary by listening to the witness through headphones and repeating their answers live for the public record.
All documentary exhibits and the witness’s written statement will be displayed on the commission’s screens and live feed, while the full transcript will be released afterwards.
Chaskalson said that “in essence, all that is being withheld from the process is the witness’s face and voice”.
The same model will apply to one of three witnesses scheduled for early next week, while the other two will testify off-camera but with their own voices audible, having opted not to use an intermediary.
The agreement follows legal exchanges between the evidence leaders and representatives of media houses, who had objected to blanket in-camera hearings.
Daily Maverick and News24, represented by Charles du Plessis, argued that the public’s right to information should not be unnecessarily restricted.
“I confirm that the draft order is acceptable to the media respondents. I have nothing further to add other than to thank the evidence leaders for their collegiality and constructive engagement to find a balance,” Du Plessis said.
The commission continues.
INSIDE POLITICS