Daily Maverick and Media24 Challenge Secrecy Conditions at Madlanga Commission Hearing

#MadlangaCommission #DailyMaverick #Media24 #SouthAfricaNews #ClassifiedInformation ‎Legal representatives for Daily Maverick and Media24 have challenged the approach taken by the evidence leaders in a dispute over the handling of classified information at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry. ‎ ‎During the proceedings, advocate Ben Winks, appearing for Daily Maverick and Media24, told the chairperson and commissioners that the central question was not simply whether the commission had the authority to override a classification or declassification decision. Instead, he argued that the commission’s powers had to be assessed within the legal framework governing its operations. ‎ ‎Winks said the relevant framework included the commission’s establishing Act, regulations, proclamation and rules. He indicated that the media respondents intended to explain how these provisions determined what the commission was legally empowered to do. ‎ ‎Dispute Over Confidential Evidence ‎ ‎Winks also questioned whether giving Dr Sifolo another opportunity to present evidence would resolve the dispute over confidentiality. ‎ ‎He argued that the information presented to the commission by the evidence leaders suggested that Dr Sifolo was effectively insisting that his evidence and supporting documents be heard and examined entirely in secret. According to Winks, this could prevent meaningful public scrutiny of the evidence. ‎ ‎However, the chairperson intervened to clarify an important aspect of the application. The chairperson referred to an affidavit indicating that, although certain information had been declassified for use by the commission, further dissemination of the documents beyond the commissioners, the commission secretary and the evidence leaders required permission from the National Intelligence Coordinating Committee (NICOC), which was identified as the author of the documents. ‎ ‎The chairperson explained that this provision could affect the characterisation of the request as an ultimatum, suggesting that the restrictions on further disclosure needed to be considered. ‎ ‎Media Respondents Question the Commission’s Powers ‎ ‎Winks acknowledged the clarification but maintained that the affidavits previously made available to the media respondents had presented the issue as a condition that could prevent the commission from hearing meaningful evidence if an in-camera process was not granted. ‎ ‎He referred to paragraph 11 of an initial affidavit and paragraph six of a replying affidavit, which, he said, addressed the limitations attached to the declassified information and the commission’s alleged inability to vary or override those restrictions. ‎ ‎The exchange highlighted the legal tension between protecting classified information and ensuring that proceedings of public importance remain open to scrutiny. ‎ ‎The dispute raises questions about the extent to which the commission can examine sensitive intelligence material, the conditions attached to its declassification, and whether those conditions permit the public to access evidence relevant to the inquiry. ‎ ‎The hearing excerpt does not establish a final ruling on the dispute. The commission’s determination will be important in clarifying how the applicable legal framework governs access to classified evidence and the balance between confidentiality and public accountability. ‎ ‎RSA Politics will continue to follow developments at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry. ‎ ‎#MadlangaCommission #DailyMaverick #Media24 #SouthAfricaNews #ClassifiedInformation #PublicAccountability #CommissionOfInquiry #RSApolitics ‎ ‎Madlanga Commission, Daily Maverick, Media24, Ben Winks, Dr Sifolo, classified information, declassification of documents, in camera hearing, intelligence documents, NICOC, South African news, Madlanga Commission latest, legal proceedings South Africa, public accountability, commission of inquiry, RSA Politics ‎