Concerns have been raised at the Madlanga Commission after Commissioner Madlanga criticised the wording used in an affidavit submitted by Suleiman Carrim, warning that it appeared to imply the commission may have been responsible for the deaths of certain individuals.
The commissioner described the suggestion as both serious and inappropriate, particularly in light of the sensitive history surrounding witness deaths connected to previous investigations.
During proceedings, Madlanga pointed out that the language contained in Carrim’s affidavit could be interpreted as suggesting that the commission itself had caused or contributed to fatalities. He emphasised that such implications were extremely serious and should not be made lightly.
Madlanga stressed that the commission operates under strict legal and constitutional frameworks, and therefore any suggestion that it had caused harm or death required careful scrutiny.
His concerns were heightened by the fact that the commission is already dealing with a deeply sensitive environment in which some witnesses associated with past investigations have died under troubling circumstances.
Two of the cases referenced during the discussion included individuals known publicly as Witness D and Wiandre Pretorius. Their deaths have previously drawn attention due to their connection to investigations involving serious allegations.
Madlanga noted that referencing such tragedies in a way that suggests the commission itself could be responsible was problematic and risked undermining public confidence in the work of the inquiry.
He made it clear that the commission takes the safety and dignity of witnesses seriously and that any insinuation suggesting otherwise must be treated with caution.
The commissioner also warned that wording used in official legal documents carries weight and can shape public perception. Because affidavits form part of the formal record of proceedings, the language used within them must be precise and responsible.
According to Madlanga, statements that appear to accuse the commission of causing harm without clear evidence could create confusion and potentially damage the credibility of the inquiry process.
He therefore indicated that such claims or suggestions would need to be addressed carefully during the commission’s work.
The discussion highlights the broader challenges facing commissions of inquiry, particularly when dealing with complex cases involving allegations of corruption, misconduct and high-profile witnesses.
In such environments, tensions can run high, and the accuracy of statements submitted to the commission becomes critically important.
Madlanga reiterated that the commission remains focused on its mandate and will continue examining the evidence presented before it while ensuring that all proceedings remain fair, balanced and grounded in fact.
The exchange has drawn attention to the importance of responsible language in legal submissions, especially when those statements could imply serious wrongdoing by institutions tasked with uncovering the truth.
