Allegations Are Not Facts
The Madlanga Commission has captured national attention since its establishment in July 2025. Public hearings, dramatic testimony, and serious accusations against senior officials have dominated headlines. But amid the spectacle, a critical principle is being forgotten: allegations are not facts.
This matters. For executives making strategic decisions and government officials navigating policy choices, the distinction between what has been claimed and what has been proven is not academic. It determines how you assess risk, protect your organization, and avoid costly mistakes based on incomplete information.
Understanding What a Commission Actually Does
The Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Criminality, Political Interference, and Corruption in the Criminal Justice System exists precisely because allegations require investigation. President Cyril Ramaphosa established it after KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi made serious claims about criminal infiltration of law enforcement. The commission, chaired by retired Constitutional Court Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, is tasked with determining what is true.
Commissions of inquiry are not courts. They are inquisitorial bodies designed to investigate matters of public concern. Unlike courts, where two parties present opposing evidence to a judge, commissions actively investigate. They summon witnesses, collect documents, and test claims. They are fact-finding mechanisms, not conviction machines.
The commission’s interim report, submitted in December 2025 and accepted by the President in January 2026, made specific referrals where it found prima facie evidence of wrongdoing. This is the correct legal term. Prima facie means “on first appearance” or “at first sight.” It indicates enough evidence exists to warrant further investigation and potential prosecution. It does not mean guilt has been established.
Five SAPS officials were referred for investigation: Major General Lesetja Senona, Major General Richard Shibiri, Brigadier Mbangwa Nkhwashu, Brigadier Rachel Matjeng, and Sergeant Fannie Nkosi. Six current and former Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality employees were also referred, including suspended EMPD Chief Julius Mkhwanazi. These referrals triggered investigations. They did not conclude them.
The Research Problem
Here is where the evidence quality issue becomes acute. Testimony before the commission has included allegations sourced from WhatsApp messages, social media platforms, mainstream media reports, and what witnesses describe as their own research. Much of this material does not meet the standard of verified evidence.
Consider the typical pattern. Someone reads a news article. That article cites unnamed sources or other media reports. They search Google for related stories. They find social media posts that seem to confirm what they have read. They compile this into a submission to the commission. This is presented as evidence.
This is not research. This is information gathering from unverified sources. Real investigative work requires primary documentation, cross-referencing multiple independent sources, verification of facts, and testing of claims. A Google search returns results based on algorithms, popularity, and search engine optimization. It does not verify truth.
Social media is worse. Platforms like TikTok, Twitter, and Facebook are designed for engagement, not accuracy. False information spreads faster than corrections. Claims go viral based on emotional appeal, not factual basis. Anonymous accounts make accusations without accountability. This material cannot be the foundation for serious allegations affecting people’s careers and liberty.
Mainstream media reports face their own limitations. Journalists work under deadline pressure. They report what sources tell them, often anonymously. They may not have the expertise to assess technical claims in policing or intelligence work. They are also covering the same commission hearings where unverified allegations are being made. A news report stating that someone testified to something is not the same as that thing being true. It is a report of testimony, not independent verification.
The Misinformation Cascade
What happens when weak evidence feeds into official processes? Information laundering. An unverified claim appears on social media. A media outlet reports that the claim is circulating. Another outlet reports on that reporting. Someone compiles these reports as evidence. A witness cites them in testimony. The media reports on the testimony. Suddenly, a single unverified claim has generated multiple apparently independent sources, all referencing each other in a circular pattern.
This is how misinformation compounds. Each iteration adds apparent credibility while the underlying claim remains unproven. By the time it reaches a commission of inquiry, it looks substantial. It arrives with documentation, multiple references, and an aura of being well-established. But trace it back to the source and you often find speculation, anonymous claims, or outright fabrication.
Intentional manipulation is also possible. Those with agendas can exploit this dynamic. Plant false information, amplify it through coordinated social media activity, get it picked up by credulous media, and submit it as evidence. The commission must then spend time and resources disproving claims that should never have gained traction.
The recent death by suicide of Wiandre Pretorius on February 7, 2026, illustrates the human cost. Pretorius was implicated in testimony by Marius van der Merwe, known as Witness D, who was himself killed in December 2025. Pretorius survived an assassination attempt days before his death. He died at a petrol station after an argument with his partner, a police sergeant. These events occurred in a climate where allegations, once made public, create immediate consequences regardless of verification.
The pattern is dangerous. Allegations are made. Media coverage intensifies. Public opinion hardens. Reputations are damaged. Lives are disrupted. Witnesses die. All before the investigative process has determined what actually happened.
Why This Matters for Decision-Makers
If you lead an organization, you make decisions based on available information. When that information comes from commission hearings, you need to understand what you are actually seeing. Testimony is not evidence of truth. It is evidence that someone made a claim.
Consider these scenarios:
You are evaluating a potential business partner who has been named at the commission. Do you cut ties immediately? That could be prudent risk management if criminal conduct is proven. It could also be a mistake if the allegations turn out to be false or exaggerated. Waiting for verified findings protects you from both reputational association with wrongdoing and from unfairly damaging a potentially valuable relationship.
You are a government official deciding whether to renew a contract with a company whose executives were mentioned in testimony. The safe political move might be cancellation. The legally sound move is to wait for conclusions based on tested evidence. Premature action based on unproven allegations exposes you to litigation and sets a precedent that accusations alone can determine outcomes.
You are managing organizational risk in a sector where commission revelations might affect regulatory approaches. Building compliance strategies around allegations rather than findings means you may be solving for problems that do not exist while missing actual regulatory changes that follow from proven facts.
The State Capture Commission provides context. It ran for over three years, heard hundreds of witnesses, and produced six reports with extensive recommendations. Some allegations were substantiated with evidence. Others were not. The commission found that a small network did indeed siphon state resources. It also heard many claims that did not reach the threshold for findings or referrals. Three years and extensive investigation were required to separate fact from allegation. Quick judgments would have been wrong.
The Seriti Commission on the arms deal offers a cautionary tale from the opposite direction. It found no corruption despite substantial evidence suggesting otherwise. The High Court overturned its findings in 2019, recognizing that the commission had failed its mandate. This shows that commissions can also fail to find truth. Their conclusions are not automatically correct either. What matters is whether the process was rigorous and the evidence properly tested.
What Proper Investigation Looks Like
When you need to assess information quality, whether from a commission or any other source, ask these questions:
Is this a primary source or someone reporting on what someone else said? First-hand documents, direct observation, and original records are primary sources. Everything else is derivative and needs to be traced back.
Has this claim been independently verified? One source making an allegation is not verification. Multiple independent sources confirming the same facts through different evidence is verification. Different media outlets reporting the same allegation is not multiple sources. It is multiple reports of one source.
What is the expertise and credibility of the source? Does the person making the claim have direct knowledge? Do they have relevant expertise? What is their track record for accuracy? What biases or interests might they have?
Is there contrary evidence? Has anyone disputed the claim? What do other witnesses or documents say? Investigations must examine conflicting evidence, not just accumulate supporting material.
What standard of proof is being applied? Different contexts require different standards. Criminal prosecution requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil proceedings use balance of probabilities. Administrative decisions may require only reasonable grounds. Understanding which standard applies tells you how much evidence is actually needed.
The Madlanga Commission is applying the prima facie standard for referrals. This means enough evidence to justify further investigation. It does not mean the investigation has concluded or guilt has been proven. Anyone treating referrals as final determinations is misunderstanding the process.
Moving Forward
The commission resumed public hearings in January 2026 and continues its work. More witnesses will testify. More allegations will be aired. More evidence will be tested. This process serves a purpose. It brings information into the open, allows scrutiny, and creates a public record. But it is a process, not a conclusion.
For those making decisions based on what emerges, patience is not passivity. It is prudence. Wait for the commission to complete its work. Read the final report when it is released. Distinguish between what the commission found proved, what it found required further investigation, and what it heard but could not verify. Understand that even then, criminal prosecution or other proceedings may be needed to reach final determinations.
Protect your organization by building decision frameworks that account for different levels of proof. An allegation requires monitoring. Prima facie evidence requires assessment and contingency planning. A proven finding requires action. Do not collapse these categories into a single response of treating all claims as established facts.
Support higher standards for evidence quality. When someone presents you with research, ask about methodology. How was information verified? What were the sources? What contrary evidence was considered? Reject compilations of Google searches and social media posts as meaningful analysis. Demand rigor.
The integrity of official processes depends on evidence quality. Commissions of inquiry can fulfil their mandate only if the information they receive meets basic standards of reliability. When submissions are built on weak foundations, commissions waste time and resources. When allegations spread faster than facts, reputations suffer unjustly. When decision-makers treat claims as conclusions, organizations make preventable mistakes.
The Madlanga Commission matters. The issues it examines are serious. Criminal infiltration of law enforcement would represent a profound threat to public safety and the rule of law. But the gravity of the subject makes accuracy more important, not less. Getting the facts right is not a technicality. It is the difference between justice and its opposite.
Remember the basic principle: allegations are not facts. They are starting points for investigation. Treat them accordingly, and you protect both your organization and the integrity of the processes designed to establish truth.