Commissions must be given binding powers

WHEN President Cyril Ramaphosa announced yet another judicial commission to investigate deep-rooted dysfunction within the police, the question wasn't whether the truth would emerge.

- NYANISO QWESHA

It was whether anything would change.

The Zondo Commission laid bare the full extent of state capture, naming names, exposing networks, yet years later, South Africans still ask: How far have we come in implementing those recommendations?

Following revelations by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi who exposed decay at SAPS's heart, we're again placing hope in a judicial commission. But hard questions demand answers. Will this be another toothless inquiry? Will Mkhwanazi be supported or scapegoated?

Judicial commissions have become our default crisis response. The issue isn’t whether we need judicial commissions. It’s whether we'll finally design ones built to deliver results.

The first fatal flaw plaguing most commissions: they're granted impressive investigative powers but no enforcement muscle. Truly effective commissions transcend “fact-finding” missions to wield binding powers that compel reform. South Africa's own Judicial Service Commission, established in 1994, exemplifies this approach. Beyond overseeing judicial appointments, it enforces ethical conduct through transparent processes, public interviews, inclusive representation that helped rebuild trust in our post-apartheid judiciary.