Madlanga Commission Hearings: Police Commissioner Masemola’s Confusing Testimony

Background to the Madlanga Commission

Earlier this month, South Africa’s Madlanga Commission of Inquiry entered its second week, tasked with peeling back layers of decision‑making within the national police service. The commission was set up after a series of high‑profile incidents that raised questions about command clarity, political interference, and the chain of accountability. Its first witness, KwaZulu‑Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, delivered a blistering account that painted a picture of internal power plays and alleged cover‑ups.

That testimony set the stage for the next witness—National Police Commissioner Madlanga Commission—who arrived at the Brigette Mabandla facility in Pretoria on September 22, 2025. Media outlets, from DStv’s Channel 403 to online news portals, broadcast the proceedings live, turning what might have been a routine hearing into a national conversation about who pulls the strings in South Africa’s policing apparatus.

Masemola’s Testimony and the Contradictions

When Commissioner Fannie Masemola took the stand, the room was already buzzing with speculation. He began by confirming several points raised by Mkhwanazi, especially around the controversial handling of a senior officer, General Mchunu. Masemola admitted, however, that he had *not* been briefed on General Mchunu’s decision before he raised concerns about another officer, Sibiya, to the Minister of Police. This gap in communication, he said, highlighted a “breakdown in the flow of critical information” between senior ranks.

Perhaps the most striking part of his testimony was a description of a private conversation with President Cyril Ramaphosa. Masemola claimed the president asked him to “ensure stability” and to “manage the public perception” surrounding the ongoing scandal. While he stopped short of revealing exact words, the implication was clear: the head of state was closely monitoring, if not subtly guiding, police leadership during the crisis.

But the smooth narrative quickly unraveled. Throughout his five‑hour appearance, Masemola offered statements that didn’t line up. At one point he said he was unaware of General Mchunu’s orders; minutes later he suggested he had been briefed but misplaced the memo. When pressed about the timing of his report to the Minister, his answers ranged from “immediately after the briefing” to “several days later.” These inconsistencies sparked a barrage of follow‑up questions from the commissioners, who noted that each gap made the overall picture fuzzier.

The commission’s chair, former judge Thandi Madlanga, expressed concern that the contradictions could signal either deliberate obfuscation or genuine confusion within the police hierarchy. She reminded Masemola that the public’s trust hinges on transparent, truthful testimony. “If we can’t rely on the commissioner’s own account, how can we trust the institution he heads?” she asked.

Beyond the immediate contradictions, Masemola’s remarks have broader ramifications. Legal analysts suggest that his admission of not knowing a senior officer’s decision could expose the police service to claims of procedural negligence. Meanwhile, political commentators are reading his description of the president’s involvement as an indicator of how intertwined the executive and policing branches have become.

The public reaction has been swift. Social media threads are split between those who view Masemola’s honesty about gaps in communication as a step toward accountability, and those who see the contradictions as evidence of a cover‑up. Civil society groups have called for a deeper forensic audit of police communications, demanding that every email, memo, and phone log be examined.

As the inquiry moves forward, the commission plans to bring in additional witnesses, including senior officials from the Ministry of Police and a few members of the president’s advisory team. Their testimonies will likely address the “stability” and “public perception” language that Masemola hinted at, shedding light on whether those were routine briefings or more strategic directives.

What remains clear is that the Madlanga Commission has become a crucial arena for South Africa’s struggle with accountability. Whether the contradictions in Masemola’s testimony will lead to concrete reforms or simply fade into the background of political theater depends on the rigor of the commission’s next steps and the willingness of the nation’s institutions to act on what they uncover.