Claims that certain PKTT-linked dockets were regarded as politically sensitive have emerged as a critical theme in testimony before the Madlanga Commission, raising questions about how perception influences policing decisions.
Several witnesses acknowledged that some cases carried heightened political implications, either because of the individuals involved or the broader context of the investigations. While no witness testified to direct political interference, commissioners focused on whether institutional caution translated into investigative paralysis.
Evidence suggested that officers sometimes exercised excessive restraint when dealing with sensitive matters, fearing reputational or career consequences should investigations attract controversy.
Commissioners questioned whether SAPS has clear guidelines for managing politically exposed cases without compromising independence. Witnesses conceded that while principles exist, practical guidance is limited.
The commission heard that perceived sensitivity can affect resource allocation, decision-making speed, and escalation practices. In some instances, matters were reportedly subjected to additional layers of consultation, slowing progress.
Legal representatives assisting the commission argued that indirect influence can be as damaging as overt interference. Commissioners appeared receptive, noting that democratic policing requires resilience against both.
The inquiry is examining whether SAPS culture adequately protects investigators working on sensitive cases, or whether uncertainty encourages risk avoidance.
As hearings continue, the commission is expected to interrogate how SAPS balances caution with constitutional obligations to investigate without fear or favour.