Civil Society Speaks: Commendations and Critiques for the Zondo Commission's Handling of State Capture

The Zondo Commission, established to investigate the breadth and depth of State Capture in South Africa, has presented an extensive body of work that civil society groups believe to be instrumental in the ongoing fight against corruption and the protection of human rights. However, the Civil Society Working Group on State Capture, a coalition comprising over 20 organizations, such as Corruption Watch and SECTION27, has expressed mixed feelings about the commission's effectiveness and the implementation of its recommendations.

The report produced by the Civil Society Working Group appreciates the exhaustive efforts of the Zondo Commission to scrutinize the overwhelming web of corrupt activities entangling state-owned enterprises and various state institutions. The Commission's insistence on criminal investigations and possible prosecutions marks a significant stride towards accountability and justice in cases of State Capture.

The meticulous approach to evidence gathering, despite immense pressure and obstruction, was particularly commendable. The commission rigorously approached its mandate with integrity and resilience, underscoring the power and potential of a well-conducted inquiry.

Moreover, it championed transparency by remaining accessible to media scrutiny and open to contributions from civil society, adding to the credibility of its proceedings. The report suggests that there is merit in keeping the Commission's extensive archive as a public resource, which would aid in further research and transparency.

Notwithstanding these accomplishments, the report from the Civil Society Working Group elucidates areas where the Zondo Commission faltered. One of the more significant criticisms pertains to the uneven attention paid across various facets of State Capture, leading to an obscured logic behind investigative priorities and a disproportionate focus on certain testimonies over others. This issue was compounded by a lack of robust public communication around the commission's decisions.

A notable missed opportunity was the denial of the Gupta family's offer to testify virtually, which the Group contends deprived the inquiry of potentially valuable cross-examination that could have shed further light on some of the intricate details of State Capture.

The Group also pointed out the lengthy period taken by the Commission to conclude its inquiry, marred by delays from both external challenges and internal inefficiencies. While some witnesses took up days of testimony, others were never called, raising questions about the justification of these decisions.

The report also criticized the Commission for not thoroughly examining the private sector's involvement, especially in enabling money laundering activities, which could have provided a cornerstone for subsequent legal actions against financial institutions.

The Group expressed concerns about the minimal focus on the manipulation of criminal justice agencies and the substantial impact of State Capture on these institutions. Furthermore, the commission's findings did not sufficiently highlight the financial and societal costs of State Capture, an inclusion the Civil Society Working Group considers would have been powerful in depicting the human toll of these corrupt acts.

While the Group acknowledges the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Advisory Council as a positive step, it emphasizes that the system remains vulnerable without directed reform.

In calling for action, the Group urges that civil society maintains focus on ensuring the preservation and accessibility of the Commission's records, the diligent implementation of its recommendations, particularly within law enforcement and legislative arenas, and continuing advocacy to counteract corruption and poor governance in South Africa.