Madlanga Commission | Ruling on Dr. Sifolo’s closed-door testimony reserved

The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry has reserved judgment on whether National Intelligence Coordination Committee Coordinator, Dr. Ntandazo Sifolo, should testify behind closed doors, with a ruling expected in the coming days.

The commission heard competing legal arguments in an open session on Wednesday, with its evidence leaders supporting an in-camera hearing while several media organisations argue for greater public access to the proceedings.

At the centre of the dispute are sensitive documents declassified specifically for the commission’s use, which remain inaccessible to the public.

The media’s legal team argues that Sifolo’s request for a closed-door hearing, coupled with restrictions on public access to the documents, amounts more to an ultimatum than an application.

Advocate Matthew Chaskalson, representing the commission’s evidence leaders, urged the chairperson to hear Sifolo’s views on the arguments before making a ruling.

“What I want to emphasise is that I am acutely aware that Dr. Sifolo may have a lot that he wants to say before hearing the terms of his declassification order. I urge the commission not make an order against him in his absence,” Chaskalson said.

Commission chairperson, retired Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, said the decision would be announced in due course.

The documents relate to the commission’s central investigation into the alleged infiltration of the criminal justice system by organised crime syndicates.

News24, Daily Maverick and the amaBungane Centre for Investigative Journalism are among the media organisations challenging the application.

They argue that the commission must consider the legal framework governing classified information and whether the documents can be made accessible to the public.

Chaskalson maintains that the commission is not a High Court and cannot overturn the classification of information.

He says either the commission or the media organisations would have to approach the High Court to challenge the restrictions.

However, he warned that court proceedings could divert the commission’s time and attention from its core mandate.

The media’s legal team, meanwhile, argues that Section 4 of the Commissions Act prevents summoned witnesses from refusing to answer questions, except when invoking their right against self-incrimination.

Advocate Ben Winks argued that witnesses should not dictate what a commission may or may not do.

The lawyers acknowledge that not all information in the documents necessarily needs to be made public, suggesting sensitive details could remain confidential while other material is disclosed.

Chaskalson, however, argued that the commission’s primary responsibility is not to provide the public with “daytime television”, but to gather evidence and make coherent recommendations to the President.

Whether Sifolo’s testimony will be heard in public or behind closed doors remains for Justice Madlanga to decide.

The commission is expected to resume open-session proceedings on 9 November.