Detailed evidence before the Madlanga Commission has shed light on the internal mechanics of how PKTT cases were processed and transferred, revealing a system heavily reliant on manual procedures and fragmented oversight.
Witnesses described a pipeline that depended on physical files, email correspondence, and individual initiative rather than integrated digital systems. Commissioners expressed concern that such reliance increases the risk of delay, miscommunication, and loss of accountability.
According to testimony, PKTT dockets were prepared for transfer through internal verification processes, but once handed over, there was limited ability to track progress centrally. Provincial units maintained their own registers, often using different formats and standards.
Commissioners questioned whether SAPS leadership had a real-time view of where sensitive cases were within the system. Witnesses conceded that no consolidated dashboard or monitoring mechanism existed to provide such oversight.
The commission heard that in some instances, case movement depended on personal follow-ups rather than automated alerts. This meant that proactive supervision was contingent on individual diligence rather than institutional design.
Legal representatives highlighted the risks associated with manual systems in high-stakes investigations, particularly where delays can compromise evidence or witness cooperation. Commissioners noted that modern policing increasingly depends on digital integration, an area where SAPS appears to lag.
Testimony further revealed that responsibility for updating records was not consistently defined, leading to gaps in documentation. In some cases, commissioners were told, it is unclear who last handled certain dockets.
The commission is now probing whether the PKTT pipeline was ever designed with scalability in mind, or whether it evolved reactively in response to operational pressures.
Findings on this issue are expected to inform recommendations on modernising SAPS case management infrastructure.