PRETORIA, South Africa-The madlanga-commission-on-monday">Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has halted proceedings for the day to permit parties to file submissions about whether parts of the hearing should be conducted in-camera.
Two media organisations have formally opposed the evidence leaders’ request to hear upcoming testimony behind closed doors. The commission, presided over by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga and two commissioners, did not disclose the identity of the next witness but confirmed that the evidence leaders would petition for in-camera access to that testimony.
Attorneys representing the media houses, madlanga-inquiry">News24 and Daily Maverick, are required to submit papers by 21:00 this evening addressing their opposition to the in-camera motion. In turn, the evidence leaders, advocates Matthew Chaskalson and Adila Hassim, must respond with written affidavits to the media’s application.
On Monday, advocate Charl du Plessis appeared before the commission as counsel for the two media outlets. He signalled that he would challenge the evidence leaders’ bid to shield the next witness’s testimony from public view. According sources, the pending witness is believed to be affiliated either with the Gauteng Counterintelligence Operations unit or with the KwaZulu-Natal political killings task team.
When the commission reconvenes on Tuesday, Justice Madlanga is expected to deliver rulings on both the media’s objection and the evidence leaders’ in-camera request. He may also decide whether to allow further oral arguments before making a final determination.
The use of in-camera hearings in commissions of inquiry raises questions about the balance between transparency and confidentiality. While public access to hearings is generally viewed as an essential component of open justice, exceptions may be permitted where the interests of national security, protection of sources or witness safety are at stake. The approach adopted by Madlanga’s commission will likely be scrutinised for how it navigates these competing principles.
Observers will be watching closely whether Justice Madlanga will grant the in-camera motion, deny it, or order that some portions be conducted in public and others privately. The outcome could set an important precedent for future commissions dealing with sensitive intelligence, security or law enforcement evidence.
