Are SA’s commissions of inquiry delivering value for money?

Questions about the cost and impact of commissions of inquiry in South Africa are intensifying as the Madlanga Commission faces a possible six-month extension amid funding constraints, prompting renewed scrutiny over whether such processes deliver value for money.

With R123 million of its R147 million budget already spent, the Madlanga Commission has drawn comparisons to the far more costly Zondo Commission. Yet a North-West University (NWU) legal academic argues that effectiveness cannot be reduced to financial comparisons alone, but must instead be assessed against each commission’s mandate and outcomes.

Advocate Mpho Justice Khoza from the NWU’s Faculty of Law explains that commissions of inquiry are not courts but executive investigative tools established to uncover facts, diagnose systemic failures and make recommendations. As such, their success lies less in their cost and more in the quality and impact of their findings.

“Effectiveness should be assessed in relation to the specific mandate of each commission, rather than through a purely financial or comparative lens,” he says.

Advocate Khoza outlines three key criteria for evaluating impact: the credibility and evidentiary strength of findings, the extent to which a commission reveals governance failures, and whether its recommendations can be implemented by state institutions. This framework, he notes, provides a more reliable measure than cost alone.

How cost shapes public perception

Public perception, however, often tells a different story. High expenditure can fuel expectations of significant outcomes, while lower costs may raise concerns about whether a commission has sufficient capacity to fulfil its mandate.

“Cost plays a significant role in shaping public perception, but it is not determinative of constitutional value,” he says, adding that accountability must ultimately be judged by whether meaningful outcomes are produced.

The possible extension of the Madlanga Commission has also raised legal and practical questions. Adv Khoza notes that extending a commission’s term constitutes an exercise of public power and must meet constitutional standards of rationality and proportionality.

An extension, he explains, must be justified by the need to complete outstanding work and must deliver benefits that outweigh additional costs. While it may strengthen findings in complex investigations, it could also undermine public confidence if perceived as inefficiency.

“From a practical perspective, the key issue is whether the extension yields demonstrable added value in fulfilling the commission’s mandate.”

What happens afterwards is what counts

Ultimately, he argues, the success of any commission depends less on its duration or budget and more on what happens after it concludes. Without implementation, even the most detailed findings risk becoming ineffective.

He identifies political will, institutional follow-through and integration into accountability systems as decisive factors. This includes action by prosecutorial bodies, legislative oversight and internal reforms within affected institutions.

In the case of systemic challenges such as police corruption, commissions can provide critical insight, but their long-term impact depends on whether their recommendations are translated into concrete reforms.

As debates over cost continue, the focus is likely to shift towards whether commissions produce lasting change, rather than how much they spend to get there.

• Follow the link to the published article here: https://news.nwu.ac.za/cost-versus-impact-legal-expert-comments-commission-effectiveness