One of the most troubling themes to emerge from the Madlanga Commission is evidence that several high-risk PKTT-linked dockets remained inactive for extended periods, prompting searching questions about urgency, prioritisation, and institutional discipline within SAPS.
Witnesses acknowledged that after transfer, some dockets experienced months of limited or no investigative activity. Explanations offered ranged from investigator shortages and competing caseloads to administrative backlogs and shifting priorities.
Commissioners, however, focused on why internal safeguards failed to detect and correct these lapses. They questioned whether SAPS adequately distinguishes between routine cases and those requiring accelerated handling due to their potential impact.
Evidence revealed that while SAPS has policies for prioritising serious and organised crime matters, application of these policies depends heavily on individual commanders. In the absence of automated alerts or central oversight, dormant cases may go unnoticed.
The commission also examined whether risk assessments were conducted when dockets were received. Witnesses conceded that no uniform risk-ranking exercise took place, meaning that potentially volatile cases entered the system without elevated status.
Legal representatives assisting the commission argued that inactivity itself can constitute a form of decision-making, particularly when delays effectively neutralise investigations. Commissioners appeared receptive to this view, noting that failure to act can be as consequential as wrongful action.
The issue of capacity was not dismissed. Several witnesses described detective units operating under severe strain, with investigators carrying workloads that far exceed recommended thresholds. However, commissioners emphasised that capacity constraints do not absolve leadership of responsibility to manage risk.
Attention also turned to whether internal reporting mechanisms adequately capture inactivity. Evidence suggested that reporting focuses on actions taken rather than actions omitted, creating blind spots in performance oversight.
As the inquiry continues, the commission is expected to interrogate whether systemic reforms are required to prevent high-risk cases from slipping into dormancy.
The testimony has underscored a central concern of the Madlanga Commission: whether SAPS systems are designed to surface failure early, or whether they inadvertently conceal it until consequences become unavoidable.