AMABHUNGANE: Openness or secrecy: media and evidence leaders square off at Madlanga Commission

Evidence leaders are desperate to put intelligence coordinator Dr Ntandazo Sifolo on the stand. They argue his testimony concerns classified reports on organised crime infiltration and can only be heard in total secrecy. Three media houses argue that less restrictive measures are possible and necessary.

Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga has reserved judgment on whether National Intelligence Coordinating Committee (NICOC) Acting Coordinator Dr Ntandazo Sifolo may testify behind closed doors.

NICOC is a body that integrates all the country’s intelligence structures, comprising Crime Intelligence, the State Security Agency, Defence Intelligence and the Intelligence Coordinator (Sifolo).

In a stand for open justice, amaBhungane, News24 and Daily Maverick opposed the blanket secrecy approach that Sifolo presented to the commission, as outlined by the evidence leaders in their application for his evidence to be heard entirely in camera.

In August amaBhungane reported on NICOC’s alleged involvement in “permanently revoking” the security clearance of the country’s spy watchdog, Imtiaz Fazel.

NICOC advises the president and the Cabinet on national strategic intelligence to pre-empt threats and safeguard constitutional order.

Sifolo’s testimony is central in understanding to what extent parts of our intelligence structures have been captured or infiltrated by criminal organisations.

It is also crucial to disclosing what the intelligence services knew and reported about it and what was done in response – in other words to what extent they did their job.

Arguing on behalf of the commission’s evidence leaders, Advocate Matthew Chaskalson said Sifolo’s evidence would cover sensitive intelligence matters, justifying why it would need to be heard in secret.

“This includes four National Intelligence Estimates issued from 2022 to 2025, 11 NICOC Intelligence Briefs [and a] a Special Report issued January to July 2025, dealing with infiltration of the criminal justice system by organised crime syndicates.”

Chaskalson said Sifolo’s 25-page statement and 536-page exhibit bundle, as well as some additional documents had “been declassified for the limited purpose of their use by the Commission” and “not… for general publication or public dissemination”.

He argued that the commission didn’t have the power to override the classification regime imposed by Sifolo in order to make any of the evidence available for public consumption.

In an argument that appeared to find favour with the commission chairperson, he said only a high court could vary the secrecy imposed by the classification of the documents.

He said the only options were for the commission or media to approach the high court to make an application for this purpose.