The perpetual nature of capture

This is not an episodic crisis in South Africa, one that can be resolved through commissions and reports

- Dimakatso John Manthosi, Keletso Gaborone & Nonhlanhla Ndimande

On day nine, in the third week of the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, a crucial phase was reached in the investigation into state capture in South Africa. This inquiry extends beyond allegations connected to the KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner, revealing the deeper maturity and entrenched nature of capture in the political and economic landscape.

This facet of capture closely mirrors the findings of the Zondo state capture commission. Although the concept of state capture has become increasingly familiar to South Africans, its full complexity remains difficult to fully grasp.

To understand this phenomenon, three essential components need to be analysed: time, institutions and the key actors involved.

It is now clear that the president himself must be held accountable, marking him as the second among five democratically elected presidents to appear before a commission with potential implications related to state capture.

This article explores these elements, beginning with the 2016 release of former public protector Thuli Madonsela’s official State of Capture report, which compelled the then president, Jacob Zuma, to establish a commission of inquiry. The report painted a sobering picture of a country grappling with insidious state capture. It exposed the systematic erosion of public institutions by private interests seeking to manipulate government decisions for personal gain.

Evidence presented at the Madlanga commission demonstrates this complex web of criminality has persisted. The 2016 report marked a landmark moment in naming and identifying the problem, raising critical questions regarding the definition and dynamics of state capture, both globally and in South Africa’s unique context, as Madonsela noted.