The dramatic downfall of advocate Andrea Johnson at the Madlanga Commission ignited a fierce debate in SA about whether the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) must be dissolved.
Some notable people such as Glynnis Breytenbach proposed dismantling Idac while others like justice minister Mmamoloko Kubayi advocated for restructuring.
The debate is very relevant at a time when SA is grappling with the massive failures of established structures, particularly anti-corruption structures such as Idac.
At the centre of this seems to be one recurring problem, the issue of political interference which renders institutions useless if not regressive.
The recurring recommendation from experts is that our institutions must be shielded from political interference.
Justice Raymond Zondo said as much in his final report of the Zondo commission.
In his report, Zondo included three recommendations about structures established for specialised oversight.
He recommended that such structures need to be independent from executive control and subject only to the constitution.
He recommended that their funding must be insulated from political interference.
He also said appointments to these bodies must be transparent and public.
All these recommendations were trying to deal with political interference.
Despite this, Idac was established inside the NPA under the oversight of a minister and Johnson was appointed by the president, definitely not the chapter 9 model Zondo had in mind.
Another dramatic fall from grace at the Madlanga commission belonged to the controversial Fadiel Adams.
This is the man who carved for himself the distinction of destroying his own credibility on the first day of his appearance.
His flimsy and frankly disrespectful reason for filing his statement late was a faulty laptop.
When pressed, it emerged that this was the same laptop which was issued by parliament for his work as a parliamentarian.
After his appearance, that important institution of parliament had to issue a public statement stating that there was no record of Adam’s laptop troubles at the institution.
However, it was justice Madlanga’s words to Adams that shook me.
He explained to Adams what it would mean if his excuses were accurate, which Madlanga did not believe were.
Perhaps for a few seconds, I sat where Adams sat and received the full weight of these words.
“This should mean that you cannot function at parliament as a parliamentarian, and it also suggests that you are not even taking the people you are supposed to serve seriously, if for as long as you suggest is the case, you have been using a laptop that you basically cannot use.
“You are not taking us as a commission seriously and I would dare say you are not even taking the people you are supposed to serve seriously.”
Madlanga’s words focused on individual responsibility.
While Adams occupied an important seat in an institution that forms a central pillar of the state, it was his sense of responsibility that defined his participation.
In the same way, Johnson occupied a seat at the helm of an anti-crime structure, but it was her sense of responsibility that gave credence to the very institution she led.
Perhaps it is Madlanga’s use of the word “serious” that should refocus our collective consciousness to the weight of the matters SA is dealing with.
The lack of seriousness displayed by Adams at the commission is not unfamiliar in our society.
It has become part of our political culture for politicians to lie and make empty promises.
We laugh and dance with them knowing full well that they are playing games.
For a moment, I heard Madlanga not only admonishing Adams but the very people Adams represented.
In not being taken seriously by Adams, they seem to have not taken themselves seriously enough.
The same applies to virtually all our politicians, who are often as flippant as Adams in their regard for the people they are supposed to serve.
As we build and rebuild, it seems very clear that both our institutions and the people who run them require serious focus and review.
Our seriousness in building a country with systems worthy of being inherited by our children must not be overtaken by the hardship of our present experiences.
The seriousness with which Madlanga and his co-commissioners take their work should serve as an inspiration to us all.
Perhaps with a bit more seriousness, we will appreciate that it is not the loud theatrics of politicians that we must support, but the real work of building better institutions and appointing better people to run them.
Daily Dispatch