The Madlanga Commission, a judicial inquiry established to examine corruption and political interference within South Africa’s criminal justice system, has issued an unusually sharp and forceful rebuttal against allegations that people associated with the inquiry tried to meddle in a criminal investigation. The Commission described the claims as false, incoherent, and wholly unsupported by facts. This is not the kind of statement that such a body issues lightly; commissions of inquiry generally prefer to let their work speak for itself and avoid engaging with every rumour or accusation that floats into the public domain. But this was different. The allegations surfaced in a courtroom, were tied to a senior police official’s bail hearing, and were captured on a voice recording that quickly began to circulate. The Commission evidently felt that silence would be mistaken for acceptance, and that the seriousness of the accusation demanded a clear, categorical, and public response. The statement came after Serge Cabonge, a man whose connection to the matter remains unclear, allegedly made claims during the bail proceedings of Shadrack Sibiya, the former deputy national police commissioner for Crime Intelligence, at the Randburg Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, 13 October. According to the recording, Cabonge said he knew someone who “sits in front” at the Madlanga Commission, and suggested that senior figures linked to the inquiry had attempted to influence a criminal investigation. The implication was that individuals occupying prominent positions within the Commission were willing to abuse their authority for personal reasons, a charge that strikes at the very heart of the Commission’s legitimacy.
The specific allegations were as serious as they were vague. Cabonge allegedly claimed that the person he knew was the “judge president” of one of the country’s largest courts, and that this individual wanted him to make a criminal case involving his girlfriend’s daughter disappear. It is difficult to overstate how damaging such a claim could be if it were true. A judge president is a senior judicial officer with immense responsibility for the administration of justice, and a judicial commission is supposed to be an independent body tasked with uncovering wrongdoing, not concealing it. The idea that a senior judge would ask someone to bury a criminal case through a Commission contact would represent a profound betrayal of public trust. Yet, as the Commission pointed out, the allegation was not supported by any facts, no evidence was offered, and the logic of the claim was difficult to follow. The recording was played in court during Sibiya’s bail hearing, which added a layer of legal gravity to the proceedings, but the Commission noted that it only became aware of the allegations when the recording surfaced in court. Initially, the Commission said it would engage with Cabonge and investigate the matter in line with its terms of reference. That seemed like a measured, reasonable approach: take the allegation seriously, look into it, and see whether there was any substance. But as public speculation grew, and as commentary on social media and elsewhere began to treat the claims as though they were established fact, the Commission decided that a more comprehensive and immediate response was necessary.
The Commission’s spokesperson, Jeremy Michaels, made it clear that the inquiry was not merely annoyed by the allegations; it was genuinely concerned that unsubstantiated claims were being given credibility simply by being repeated. He said that allegations and commentary suggesting that senior representatives of a judicial commission sought to interfere with a criminal investigation could not be allowed to circulate as though they had a factual foundation. This is an important point. In an era where information spreads quickly and often without verification, a false accusation can take on a life of its own. Once a claim is repeated enough times, people begin to assume there must be something to it, even if there is no evidence. The Commission wanted to stop that process in its tracks. Michaels stated categorically that the allegations were entirely without merit, and that no commissioner, evidence leader, or representative of the Commission had sought to influence or interfere in any criminal investigation. He rejected the allegations outright, saying there was simply no factual basis for them. The language was stark and unambiguous, reflecting a body that felt its integrity had been attacked and that needed to defend not only its reputation but also the principle that judicial inquiries must be seen as impartial and untouchable by personal interests. The Commission also stressed that it had always conducted its proceedings transparently and within the framework of its terms of reference, and that any suggestion that its representatives had acted outside those parameters was entirely untrue.
Perhaps the most powerful part of the Commission’s response was its assertion that none of its commissioners or evidence leaders had ever met, spoken to, or known Serge Cabonge. This was not a carefully worded denial that left room for doubt; it was a direct and absolute statement. The Commission went further, saying that no one on behalf of the Commission had ever communicated with Cabonge, whether directly or through an intermediary, concerning his appearance before the Commission. This matters because Cabonge’s alleged claim implied some kind of relationship or connection with people inside the Commission. If the Commission had never had any contact with him, then the entire foundation of his story collapses. How could a senior figure at the Commission have asked him to make a criminal case disappear if that senior figure had never spoken to him or had any interaction with him? The Commission’s denial was not just a rejection of the allegation; it was a dismantling of the narrative. It also raised questions about Cabonge’s motives and about why such a claim was made in the first place. Was it a deliberate attempt to discredit the Commission? Was it a desperate move in the context of a bail hearing? Was it simply a fabrication? The Commission did not speculate on these questions, but its response made clear that it saw the allegation as baseless and possibly malicious. By stating that its representatives did not know Cabonge at all, the Commission effectively challenged anyone who believed the allegation to produce some evidence of a connection. None has been offered so far.
The Commission also took the opportunity to remind the public of the importance of treating unverified claims with caution. Michaels urged South Africans to distinguish between unverified claims and established facts, and to approach allegations of this nature with the necessary skepticism. This is a broader lesson that goes beyond the specific incident. In any democratic society, the integrity of institutions depends on public trust, and that trust can be eroded by false accusations just as easily as by genuine wrongdoing. The Commission was not asking people to ignore allegations; it was asking them to demand evidence before accepting accusations as truth. This is especially important in the context of a judicial inquiry, which is supposed to be a truth-seeking body. If the Commission itself can be discredited by baseless claims, then its findings, no matter how thorough and well-supported, may be dismissed by those who do not want to accept them. The Commission’s mandate is to investigate allegations of criminality, political interference, and corruption within South Africa’s criminal justice system, including law enforcement and intelligence structures. Chaired by Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, the inquiry was established to get to the bottom of serious problems that have undermined public confidence in the justice system. To do that effectively, it must be seen as independent, impartial, and beyond reproach. That is why the Commission responded so forcefully to the allegations. It was not just defending its reputation; it was defending its ability to do its job.
Looking ahead, the Commission said that its work would continue uninterrupted, with public hearings set to resume on 9 November 2026. Despite the controversy surrounding the latest allegations, the Commission insisted that it would carry out its mandate independently and without fear, favour, or prejudice. This is a significant statement, because it signals that the Commission will not be distracted or derailed by attempts to undermine it. The resumption of hearings means that the inquiry will continue to examine the complex and often painful issues that it was created to address: corruption in law enforcement, political interference in criminal investigations, and the erosion of the rule of law. The allegations made by Cabonge, whatever their origin or purpose, will not be allowed to overshadow that work. In the end, the Commission’s response was a reminder that institutions must be willing to defend themselves when attacked, but also that they must continue to do the work they were established to do. The public hearings will provide an opportunity for evidence to be presented, witnesses to be heard, and findings to be made. The Commission’s clear and categorical denial of the allegations, combined with its commitment to transparency and its refusal to be intimidated, suggests that it remains focused on its mission. Whether the allegations will have any lasting impact remains to be seen, but for now, the Commission has made its position unmistakably clear: the claims are false, the Commission has had no contact with the man who made them, and its work will go on.