Cornelius Monama argues that comparing the Zondo and Madlanga commissions is inherently flawed due to their differing mandates, resources, and outcomes.

The Zondo commission, established to investigate state capture across the entire South African state, uncovered extensive corruption involving institutions like Eskom, Transnet, and Sars.

It relied on procurement records, financial transactions, and correspondence to reconstruct years of systemic corruption, leading to over 300 testimonies, R17bn in recoveries, and institutional reforms.

In contrast, the Madlanga commission focuses narrowly on law-enforcement failures and benefits from modern technology like WhatsApp for communication.

Monama criticizes the narrative that the Zondo commission was ineffective, emphasizing its unprecedented scope and impact, including 200+ criminal referrals and strengthened anti-corruption frameworks.

The article stresses the importance of evaluating commissions based on their specific terms of reference rather than superficial comparisons, highlighting the need for honest analysis grounded in context.