Authored By: Ayoyisa Lithe-Tha Ntambo
IIE VARSITY COLLEGE, SANDTON
Introduction
The ‘Cat’s’ out the bag, South Africa ‘s government has once again proven that there are still corrupt officials that are using taxpayer monies for personal gains and to fund their lifestyles. Money and resources required to be used to fund infrastructure, education and health care, amongst other responsibilities towards the public are being misappropriated and siphoned.[1] Thus, leaving ordinary citizens to face the dire consequences of failed mandates. From countless commissions to state-capture. There is a clear issue with politicians’ interference and appointed public servants are significant role players in the misappropriation of funds. There is a plethora of instances testament to the corruption that partakes in South Africa and inside its State-owned enterprises (SOEs), that affects their operations resulting in its stakeholders, such as the general- public being affected.
The ongoing Madlanaga Commission has sparked the interest of many South African’s and the inspiration behind this article. Especially the likes of notorious businessman, Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala. Who has submitted his close relations with former Minister of South African Police (SAPS) Mr. Bheki Cele. The two’s relations included, but aren’t limited to, bribery and providing Cele with accommodation in affluent apartments with transportation when Cele and his family were in Gauteng. Although Matala expresses Cele as an extortionist.[2] The Commission inquiry ignited an inquiry into the rampant corruption that is happening in South Africa. The irony that bodies such as SAPS and anti-corruption officials, the judiciary and public servants are inflicted in the country’s biggest corruption scandals will always be a matter that needs to be addressed.
This legal article aims to discuss and critically analysis the corruption within South Africa. Specifically narrowing it to the commissions that have been established, previous state-capture incidents (case study of Eskom). Whilst considering the impact of colonisations in the post-colonial era of the country.
The legal issue is that there are trusted bodies and government officials such as ministers, politicians and even members of the judiciary, trusted with the mandate of putting citizens best interest at the fore front, comprise their duties to the country for their personal private gain or that of their associates. This naturally questions whether, based on previous incidents if those found implicated are being held accountable. And what can be done to drastically minimize the corruption so deeply infiltrated into entrusted bodies.
The Independence of Africa and post-colonial corruption.
There is a common phrase that says, “history repeats itself’ Even though post- colonialism most African countries have adopted a democratic governance, it is unfortunate to witness or experience that even post-colonialism there are leaders using the same tactics that were used during colonialism: control, force, tyranny and oppression. The independence of the African continent in the period of 1960 to 1970 was developed to bring liberation and equality into a continent that faced years of control under colonisers such the French and Britains. By their very nature had corrupt tendencies that affected the majority and favoured a minority of people. The liberation of the African continent aimed for developments that involved a better vision for Africa. Nevertheless, there was an increased rate in corruption, breakdown in governments and political instability. [3]
What is corruption?
A worldwide phenomenon that has existed throughout human history, has been one the world’s biggest challenges. The definition for corruption has sparked debate over the past decades. Whereby academics find it difficult to truly define the act. Corruption is known to be the transformation into “decay “or “destruction” and includes any “[d]ishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power” [Mariam -Webster]. The Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act details the offence of corruption with the following elements:
- Someone giving or offering to/ someone receiving or agreeing to.
- Someone who is in a position of power.
- Gratification (money, donations, rewards, property, avoidance of loss, a privilege).
- Using position of power unfairly or unlawfully.
Such conduct deviates from the formal duties in which a public role (elective or appointed) has been given.
Corruption benefits those in its networks at the expense of the public. The abuse of entrusted power for private gain has distorted public policy to such an extent it has become a norm to consider all those in entrusted institutions to be ‘corrupt’.
Legislative Framework
There are various legislative frameworks, domestically and internationally that regulate state corruption and are dedicated to preventing and criminalising corruption.
International frameworks:
South Africa is party to various anti-corruption conventions, such as the United Nations Convention (UNCAC) with key features that aim to:
- Prevent corruption and criminalise corruption.
- cooperate with other countries the fight against corruption; and
- recover assets.
This convention, amongst other things, requires party states to promote active participation of community members, organisations in the fight against corruption; consider incorporating into their domestic legal systems appropriate measures that protect those who disclose cases of corruption in good faith and hold legal persons liable for offences against the Convention.[4]
OECD Anti-bribery Convention: This convention establishes that the parties to this Convention are to establish, in their domestic laws, that it is considered a criminal offence bribing foreign public officials in international business transactions. This convention also has a monitoring system to ensure that obligations under it are being carried out.[5]
Domestic frameworks
Much of South Africa’s domestic legislation reflect the obligations set out in the conventions it is party to. To list a few of its statues:
The Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act 2004: This is a key corruption statute in the country. It provides both specific and general offences of corruption as well as investigative measures. The penalties one may receive if in contravention of this Act vary depending on where the charges are made. Penalties range from 18 years’ imprisonment to life sentences.
Prevention of Organised Crime Act 1998: This statute refers to combatting organised crime in South Africa. It addresses criminal activities such as money laundering, racketeering or criminal gang activities.
Protected Disclosures Act 2000: A ‘protected disclosure’ is defined as the reveal of information regarding conduct, of an employer or employee. That such conduct it can be considered a criminal offence being committed or is likely to be committed, or a failure to comply with a legal obligation. However, the act only applies to employers or employees in both private and public sectors who disclose information, who may face occupational detriment and are need of protection for disclosing.
Criminal Procedure Act 1977 (CPA): The CPA governs the procedural aspect of criminal proceedings: search and seizure, arrest, charges, bail and plea to list a few.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Constitution): The supreme law of the country is direct in its stance against corruption in public and private sectors. It encompasses of the Bill of rights, which are the right to dignity, respect and equality amongst others and the state has the duty to ensure that these rights are fulfilled.
State-Capture: Eskom case study.
The term state-capture is used to describe a type of corruption that can stem from an extreme form of bribery. It is affiliated with government officials and private interests outside the country amending laws of the state to exploit resources for private interests.[6] State capture occurs when private groups or companies systematically bribe or perform other corrupt acts to manipulate state officials and institutions to benefit their own interests. Resulting in the misallocation of resources away from the public. State -capture affects and undermines government frameworks and stalls socio-economic development.
SOE mismanagement: State -owned enterprises have a socioeconomic responsibility to fulfil the nation’s interests. However, the corruption and fulfilment of self-interest, that occurs within these enterprises causes a considerable amount of discourse and mistrust in the operations. The mismanagement and inefficiency of SOE operations are due to the day-to-day interferences of running the entities of politicians or state officials. Resulting in the inability to perform with accountability and transparency. The downfall of Eskom is testament to this.
One of the first SOEs created in South Africa was the Electricity Supply Commission (ESCOM), it was coined to be the ‘crowned jewel’ of South Africa’s state-owned companies. Providing large amounts of electricity at an affordable amount. Eskom was established during the Apartheid regime and was meant to provide electricity to residential white neighbourhoods. Even in its internal operations, jobs where particularly managerial jobs were meant for the white minority man. These were the notable signs of corruption in the peak of Eskom. When the country was headed towards a democratic era, the maladministration of Eskom were becoming increasingly evident. Despite ANC’s efforts to be equality and Black Economic Empowerment driven, implementing new restructured policies. A downfall was beginning. When ANC became the leading party, then Eskom directors had signed off on rushed contracts and Eskom was in debt and low on power supply. Subsequently, in 1989 when the Department of Minerals and Energy released a policy paper stating that by 2007 Eskom would start running short on energy supply, the ANC failed to act. [7] In 2007, the short energy supply had manifested. With countrywide blackouts, factors such as greed, lack of consequence management poor governance and blatant corruption within Eskom had exacerbated a matter that could have saved the country billions in expenditure. More of Eskom’s issues continued into Zuma’s presidential period. By 2015, Eskom had had different CEOs in a short period. In Thuli Madonsela’s final report (2016), Zuma and notorious family business, had allegations of corruption against them.
The Commissions:
What is a Commission inquiry?
Before analysing and discussing two different commissions that were established by different presidents, it is important to understand the nature and purpose of a commission. Former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela quotes “Commissions of inquiry are part and parcel of the architecture of democracy”.[8] Section 84(2)(f) of the Constitution empowers the President of the country to appoint Commissions of inquiry and the Commission Act 8 of 1947 is what regulates the extent of the which the commission’s investigation will proceed. A commission inquiry and court of law can be somewhat confusing as they share many similarities. The chairperson of inquiry is a judge or magistrate, and witnesses are questioned by advocates, much like in the court of law. However, the difference between the two is in what is meant to be achieved and what will be done with the findings. Commissions are inquisitive in nature and have a more “fact-finding’ mission for the individual who established or set up the inquiry. The main aim of a commission is to investigate matters that are of public concern. In discussing the two prominent commissions that have happened in South Africa, particularly the Seriti Commission, established by former president, Jacob Zuma. The effects of corruption and determination to invalidate crucial evidence are so grave it would make one wonder: are commissions sometimes bandages for bullet wounds?
President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC) substantiates the functions of a commission inquiry, emphasising that it determines facts, recommends to the President and the President is neither obligated to accept or follow the recommendations. In other cases, a commission is merely used to reveal the truth on a matter that is of public concern.
Seriti Commission:
Established in 2011 by former president, Jacob Zuma, Zuma was compelled to establish a commission of inquiry into the procurement packages and allegations of criminal misconduct resulting from them. Zuma appointed Judge Seriti for the commission. The Seriti commission was established to investigate matters of corruption, fraud, and impropriety allegation in Strategic Defence Procurement Package (SDPP) and inquire the reasoning behind the Arms Deal of 1999. An estimated R30 Billion was spent on sophisticated military equipment, and the commission was to inquire whether the money and equipment was properly utilised and whether job opportunities associated with the Arms Deal materialised or not. The establishment of the commission was to investigate fraud, corruption in respect of procurement packages. However, the commission illuminated the very wrongdoings it was investigating against. The downfall of the commission began when two judges of the three resigned before the hearing, leaving judge Seriti behind. Many other resignations followed suit from advocates and lead researchers who complained against Seriti. [9]
This commission represented the web of deceit that was present within the country’s government branches. Over R140 million in taxpayer money spent on this commission, yet by the time when the final report was released on December 2015, it failed to hold politicians and public servant’s offences accountable. Non-profit organisations such as Right2know and Corrupt Watch submitted to the high court in Corruption Watch and Another v Arms Procurement Commission [2019] ZAGPPHC 351 that the findings of the commission be deemed invalid and overturned. Despite Zuma facing criminal charges for taking bribes from a French company that was implicated in the Arms deal to not be subjected to criminal charges, the submissions of the commission stated that it found no evidence to substantiate the allegations against Zuma and those of the corrupted government officials and senior politicians.
Madlanaga Commission:
The Madlanaga Commission was established by Cyril Ramaphosa on the 6th of July 2025 and is currently an ongoing commission. This commission inquiry addresses the criminality, political interference, and corruption in the criminal justice system. Kwa-Zulu Natal, police commissioner Lieutenant-general Nhlanhla Mkwanazi, made a public statement outing that South Africa’s criminal justice system has been comprised due to the infiltration of criminal syndicates into the police, judicial, parliamentary, political, intelligence and law enforcement structures.
Legal analysis:
The corruption that happens in SOEs is systematic in nature. Although there are various conventions and statutes that aim to protect the interests of public from corruption and soe mismanagement. The harsh reality is that it is an internal matter that need to be addressed.
In the Seriti commission, Zuma was implicated in the inquiry as a conflict of interest. He appointed the chairperson and in the final report, Seriti found allegations against him to be invalid, despite the evidence that has been produced or could have been, had the proceedings of the inquiry been followed through.
The Madlanaga commission and Seriti emphasises the need for a separation of powers between the institutions. Private interest being fulfilled at the expense of the public, as shown in the Eskom case study is detrimental to a country that faced decades of injustice and inequality. For instance, even though South Africa is a democratic country, the electricity issue would be dire to rural communities than in the suburban areas.
In a multi-party country, many of the parties promise to fix the electricity, water and health care and crime crisis in South Africa. However, with the misallocation of resources, politician interference and mismanagement of SOE operations, with the rampant corruption it is becomes a 10 step back scenario. This is especially the case when the judiciary is also implicated. As it affects the trust and respect towards the court of law. That those who promise a better socio-economy to hinder the progress towards it. Those found liable need to be held rightfully accountable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, South Africa, unfortunately has a long journey to eradicating corruption in its entrusted institutions, especially those that provide crucial public services. The act of corruption is a web that has many strings to it. It is not a straightforward issue to handle, however, the objectives to ensure that South Africa’s governance can succeed long term and provide resources equally. The questions to hold those liable accountable need to be straightforward and intentional.
BIBILIOGRAPHY.
Primary Sources.
Corruption Watch and Another v Arms Procurement Commission [2019] ZAGPPHC 351
President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC)
Secondary sources.
Joorst LJ, ‘Public Sector Corruption and State-Owned Enterprises in South Africa: The Case of Eskom ( Master of arts thesis, University of Stellenbosch 2025).
CorruptWatch’ The Seriti Commission’ ( https://sahistory.org.za/article/seriti-commission 21 February 2023)
Corruptwatch ‘ Matlala: case bribes to Cele, threats from Mkhwanazi during SAPS contract woes ( https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/matlala-claims-cash-bribes-to-cele-threats-from-mkhwanazi-during-saps-contract-woes/ 28 November 2025).
SANEF ‘ Commission of inquiry chapter 6’ < https://courtreporting.sanef.org.za/wp-content/uploads/6.-Commissions-of-Inquiry-SANEF-Court-Reporting.pdf . accessed 11 March 2026.
Mlambo D, Mubecua M , Mlambo V ‘ Post-colonial Independence and Africa’s Corruption Conundrum: A Succinct South African Critique Post-democratisation’ (2023)
Corruption watch ‘ Corruption and the law in South Africa : A quick reference guide’ (https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Corruption-Watch-Corruption-and-the-law-in-SA.pdf )
[1] Laylah Jade Joorst, ‘Public Sector Corruption and State-Owned Enterprises in South Africa: The Case of Eskom ( Master of arts thesis, University of Stellenbosch 2025).
[2] Corruptwatch ‘ Matlala: case bribes to Cele, threats from Mkhwanazi during SAPS contract woes ( https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/matlala-claims-cash-bribes-to-cele-threats-from-mkhwanazi-during-saps-contract-woes/ 28 November 2025).
[3] Joorst.
[4] Corruption watch ‘ Corruption and the law in South Africa : A quick reference guide’ (https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Corruption-Watch-Corruption-and-the-law-in-SA.pdf )
[5] Ibid.
[7] Joorst.
[8] SANEF ‘ Commission of inquiry chapter 6’ https://courtreporting.sanef.org.za/wp-content/uploads/6.-Commissions-of-Inquiry-SANEF-Court-Reporting.pdf accessed 11 March 2026.
[9] CorruptWatch’ The Seriti Commission’ ( https://sahistory.org.za/article/seriti-commission 21 February 2023)
