The Madlanga Commission has heard extensive testimony detailing how 121 criminal dockets originating from the Provincial Key Task Team (PKTT) were formally introduced into the South African Police Service system, opening a critical line of inquiry into how high-risk investigations are absorbed, processed, and prioritised within SAPS.
The testimony, delivered by senior police officials, focused on the mechanics of the transfer process rather than the substance of individual cases. However, commissioners made it clear that understanding how the dockets entered the system is essential to determining whether later investigative failures were procedural, structural, or avoidable.
According to evidence presented, the 121 dockets were transferred in bulk rather than through a phased or prioritised handover. This decision immediately placed strain on provincial detective services, many of which were already operating under capacity constraints. Witnesses confirmed that while formal receipt procedures were followed, no dedicated intake framework existed to manage a transfer of this scale and sensitivity.
Commissioners questioned why SAPS leadership did not establish a centralised reception or assessment unit to triage the dockets upon arrival. In response, witnesses conceded that the assumption at the time was that existing provincial systems would absorb the cases without disruption. That assumption is now under scrutiny.
The commission heard that once received, the dockets were distributed across various investigative units based largely on geographic jurisdiction rather than complexity or risk profile. This raised concerns that highly specialised or politically sensitive matters may not have received the level of expertise required at the outset.
Further evidence revealed that no unified risk assessment was conducted immediately after the transfer. Commissioners expressed concern that the absence of such an assessment may have resulted in critical cases being treated as routine matters, despite their potential implications for public trust and institutional integrity.
The issue of preparedness featured prominently during questioning. Members of the commission probed whether senior SAPS leadership had been adequately briefed before the dockets arrived and whether sufficient resources had been allocated in anticipation of the transfer. Testimony suggested that while the transfer was known in advance, the operational impact may have been underestimated.
Legal representatives assisting the commission also raised questions about record-keeping. Witnesses confirmed that while proof of receipt exists, documentation reflecting decision-making during the first weeks after transfer is limited. This gap complicates efforts to establish accountability for early delays.
The commission is expected to interrogate whether the method of intake directly influenced subsequent investigative inertia. At stake is not only the handling of the 121 PKTT dockets, but broader questions about SAPS readiness to manage large-scale, high-risk case transfers in the future.
As hearings continue, the commission’s focus is shifting from individual decisions to systemic design, examining whether institutional weaknesses created conditions in which failure became likely rather than accidental.