Media Challenge Madlanga Commission's Closed Hearings, Inquiry Paused
When Mbuyiseni Madlanga, retired Constitutional Court judge chaired the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry in Pretoria on 25 September 2025, the session was abruptly adjourned. The pause came after two of South Africa’s most vocal newsrooms – News24 and Daily Maverick – filed legal papers opposing the commission’s push for in-camera hearings. Jeremy Michaels, the commission’s spokesperson, confirmed that “their lawyers will file an application opposing the bid for closed hearings,” a statement captured in a YouTube briefing posted the same day.
Background to the Madlanga Commission
The Madlanga Commission was established under the Commissions Act 8 of 1947 to investigate a series of undisclosed matters that have been described as “sensitive” by the chair. While the exact scope remains under wraps, past commissions in South Africa have dealt with corruption, state capture and irregular procurement – so the stakes are high. Mbuyiseni Madlanga took the helm in early 2025 after a brief suspension of the inquiry that lasted several months. The commission’s headquarters sit on the sprawling campus of the Department of Justice in Pretoria, a location chosen for its symbolic link to the country’s legal core.
Legal Challenge by News24 and Daily Maverick
On the morning of 25 September, both outlets announced that they would jointly oppose the request to move upcoming testimonies behind closed doors. News24, founded in 1998 and owned by News24 Digital Media (Pty) Ltd, issued a press release saying, “Open justice is a cornerstone of our democracy. Any move to shield testimony from the public must meet the highest legal scrutiny.” Daily Maverick, an independent digital publisher launched in 2009 under DM16 Media (Pty) Ltd, echoed the sentiment, adding, “Our readers deserve transparency, especially when the state invokes secrecy.”
The legal filings argue that the commission has not demonstrated a compelling need for secrecy under South African law, and that the public’s right to access outweighs the alleged sensitivity of the evidence. While the precise statutes cited were not disclosed, counsel for the media houses reportedly referenced the Promotion of Access to Information Act and precedent from the 2018 Zondo Commission, where courts rejected blanket in‑camera orders.
Jeremy Michaels, speaking to reporters, said, “The commission is merely exercising its statutory discretion. If the courts find the challenge unpersuasive, we will proceed with in‑camera sessions to protect witnesses and national interest.” The tone was firm, but the acknowledgement that the matter would now sit in court signalled a procedural impasse.
Implications for Transparency and Public Access
South Africa’s post‑apartheid legal framework has long championed openness. The Constitution’s Section 32 guarantees everyone the right to access information held by the state. Yet, commissions of inquiry have occasionally been granted secrecy to protect whistle‑blowers or national security. The clash between the Madlanga Commission and the two media giants spotlights a broader tug‑of‑war: balancing the need for confidential testimony against the public’s demand for accountability.
Observers note that the timing is striking. The commission had just resumed its work after a months‑long hiatus, and the first round of testimonies were expected to address allegations of high‑level procurement irregularities – an issue still raw from the recent state‑capture saga. If the commission proceeds in‑camera, journalists argue that the public could be left guessing about the very matters that fuel distrust in government.
Legal scholars, such as Professor Thandiwe Nkosi of the University of Johannesburg, point out that South Africa’s courts have been increasingly reluctant to endorse secrecy without clear, narrow justifications. “The bar is high,” she told the Johannesburg Press Club, “and any commission that wishes to close its doors must meet that threshold, or risk eroding the very legitimacy it seeks to protect.”
Next Steps and Possible Outcomes
With the commission adjourned, the next procedural milestone is a court hearing scheduled for early November 2025. The judge will weigh the media houses’ arguments against the commission’s claim of “sensitive testimony.” If the court rejects the in‑camera request, the inquiry will likely reopen to the public, and the next round of witnesses will appear on live streams – a format the commission has already trialled.
Conversely, should the court side with the commission, we could see a prolonged period of behind‑closed‑doors sessions. That scenario would probably trigger further legal challenges, perhaps from civil‑society groups like the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, which has already signalled its intent to intervene.
Either way, the outcome will set a precedent for how future commissions handle secrecy. It may also influence how media outlets approach legal battles over access; both News24 and Daily Maverick have hinted they will fund a broader coalition to defend open justice if the ruling favours in‑camera hearings.
Key Takeaways
- 25 September 2025: Madlanga Commission adjourned after media challenge.
- Primary entities: Mbuyiseni Madlanga, Jeremy Michaels, News24, Daily Maverick, Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.
- Legal dispute centers on whether the commission can hold “sensitive” testimony in‑camera.
- Potential November court decision will shape future transparency standards for South African inquiries.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are News24 and Daily Maverick opposing the closed hearings?
Both outlets argue that the public’s constitutional right to access information outweighs the commission’s claim of sensitivity. They say the media’s role in scrutinising state power is essential, especially given the commission’s mandate to investigate allegations of high‑level misconduct.
What does “in‑camera” actually mean for the inquiry?
An in‑camera hearing is closed to the public and press; only the commission, the parties involved and authorised officials may attend. testimony presented in such a setting is not automatically released to the public, though transcripts can be requested later under strict conditions.
What legal standards will the court apply to decide the case?
Judges will look at the Promotion of Access to Information Act, relevant sections of the Constitution (especially Section 32), and precedents such as the Zondo Commission rulings. The key question is whether the commission can demonstrate a compelling, narrowly defined need for secrecy.
How could this decision affect future commissions?
A ruling against in‑camera sessions would reinforce open‑justice principles, making it harder for future commissions to hide testimony. Conversely, approval of secrecy could embolden other inquiries to seek closed hearings, potentially limiting public oversight.
When is the next hearing expected to take place?
The court is slated to hear arguments in early November 2025. No new date for the commission’s public sessions has been announced, pending the court’s decision on the media challenge.
Naman Patidar
The media's push for open hearings is understandable but the commission's secrecy concerns are not entirely unfounded. Still, the legal wrangling feels a bit overblown.