Story audio is generated using AI
The frustration expressed by justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga this week over yet another last-minute medical certificate is understandable. A commission of inquiry tasked with uncovering corruption and restoring public confidence cannot afford to be repeatedly stalled by poorly explained absences.
Every postponement carries a cost, not only in time and public money, but also in the confidence of South Africans who expect accountability.
The latest delay, following the non-appearance of Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) official Adv Andrea Johnson, prompted the commission chairperson to question the adequacy of the medical certificate presented.
His remarks that the note was “useless” reflected mounting concern over what appears to be an emerging pattern rather than an isolated incident. The suggestion that the commission may seek an independent medical opinion is therefore not unreasonable. It is a measured response aimed at balancing compassion with the need to protect the integrity of the inquiry.
Justice Madlanga is working against a fixed deadline. His commission has already heard explosive testimony exposing alleged corruption, political interference, and abuse of power within SA’s criminal justice system.
The public deserves a process that is thorough, fair, and efficient. Endless interruptions undermine that objective.
At the same time, genuine illness must never be dismissed lightly. Appearing before a commission or a court can be immensely stressful, particularly for witnesses who know their evidence could have far-reaching personal or professional consequences.
Anxiety is a real medical condition, and in some instances, it can lead to hospitalisation. When the situation genuinely reaches this point, no one should be expected to testify just to satisfy public impatience.
However, if a medical certificate becomes an easy way to avoid a difficult testimony, confidence in the justice system begins to erode. Witnesses cannot be allowed to determine the pace of proceedings by producing vague or inadequate documentation whenever the pressure intensifies. Where legitimate questions arise, independent verification is both sensible and fair.
The Madlanga commission has earned widespread respect for fearlessly exposing alleged wrongdoing at the highest levels of law enforcement and government.
That credibility must not be compromised by repeated delays that create unnecessary suspicion and frustration. Equally, witnesses deserve dignity and proper consideration when genuine health concerns arise.
The challenge is therefore to strike the right balance: protecting the rights and wellbeing of individuals while ensuring that justice is neither delayed nor denied.
