Today, amaBhungane, Daily Maverick and Media24 will oppose an application to hear the entire testimony of a senior intelligence official at the Madlanga Commission behind closed doors. Dr N Sifolo, acting coordinator of the National Intelligence Co-ordinating Committee (NICOC), is expected to give evidence about intelligence reports concerning the infiltration of South Africa's criminal justice system by organised crime syndicates. He will have to explain why the country’s intelligence apparatus did not manage to counter this infiltration. His testimony is expected to draw on four National Intelligence Estimates issued between 2022 and 2025, as well as 11 intelligence briefs and a special report issued between January and July 2025. These documents were declassified for use by the commission, but not for public release. The commission's evidence leaders argue that, because of these restrictions, Sifolo's testimony should be heard entirely in camera. They contend that the commission does not have the power to change the terms of declassification. We are opposing that application. In our heads of argument, we make four central points. First, the evidence leaders have not provided sufficient evidence to show what specific harm to national security would result from public testimony. Second, the fact that information has been classified does not, on its own, justify withholding it from the public. Our submissions draw on Constitutional Court judgments affirming the importance of open justice and the need to justify restrictions on public access.  Third, the Constitutional Court has opened the way for the Commission to make its own assessment and not be bound by the classifications imposed because it is granted the powers of a high court under the Commissions Act. Fourth, even where there are legitimate security concerns, those concerns do not necessarily justify excluding the public from an entire hearing. We are proposing a less restrictive approach: Sifolo should testify publicly wherever possible, with closed sessions limited to genuinely sensitive evidence. Information that could compromise national security, ongoing operations or individuals' safety could be protected through redactions and the use of codenames. This is particularly important given the subject of the commission's investigation. The commission is examining allegations of criminality, political interference and corruption within South Africa's criminal justice system. Among the questions it must confront are how organised crime syndicates were able to infiltrate these institutions, what the country's intelligence structures knew about those threats, and how that information was reported and acted upon. These are matters of considerable public interest. We recognise that some intelligence information may require protection. But the starting point must be open proceedings, with secrecy justified where it is genuinely necessary. The public should not be excluded from hearing evidence about the conduct and accountability of state institutions without compelling reasons.

Tomorrow, amaBhungane, Daily Maverick and Media24 will oppose an application to hear the entire testimony of a senior intelligence official at the Madlanga Commission behind closed doors. Dr N Sifolo, acting coordinator of the National Intelligence Co-ordinating Committee (NICOC), is expected to give evidence about intelligence reports concerning the infiltration of South Africa's criminal justice system by organised crime syndicates. He will have to explain why the country’s intelligence apparatus did not manage to counter this infiltration. His testimony is expected to draw on four National Intelligence Estimates issued between 2022 and 2025, as well as 11 intelligence briefs and a special report issued between January and July 2025. These documents were declassified for use by the commission, but not for public release. The commission's evidence leaders argue that, because of these restrictions, Sifolo's testimony should be heard entirely in camera. They contend that the commission does not have the power to change the terms of declassification. We are opposing that application. In our heads of argument, we make four central points. First, the evidence leaders have not provided sufficient evidence to show what specific harm to national security would result from public testimony. Second, the fact that information has been classified does not, on its own, justify withholding it from the public. Our submissions draw on Constitutional Court judgments affirming the importance of open justice and the need to justify restrictions on public access.  Third, the Constitutional Court has opened the way for the Commission to make its own assessment and not be bound by the classifications imposed because it is granted the powers of a high court under the Commissions Act. Fourth, even where there are legitimate security concerns, those concerns do not necessarily justify excluding the public from an entire hearing. We are proposing a less restrictive approach: Sifolo should testify publicly wherever possible, with closed sessions limited to genuinely sensitive evidence. Information that could compromise national security, ongoing operations or individuals' safety could be protected through redactions and the use of codenames. This is particularly important given the subject of the commission's investigation. The commission is examining allegations of criminality, political interference and corruption within South Africa's criminal justice system. Among the questions it must confront are how organised crime syndicates were able to infiltrate these institutions, what the country's intelligence structures knew about those threats, and how that information was reported and acted upon. These are matters of considerable public interest. We recognise that some intelligence information may require protection. But the starting point must be open proceedings, with secrecy justified where it is genuinely necessary. The public should not be excluded from hearing evidence about the conduct and accountability of state institutions without compelling reasons.

D-Day looms for alleged 28s gang boss Ralph Stanfield and his co-accused wife, Nicole Johnson, with the couple to appear in the Western Cape High Court for their organised crime trial.

The stakes are high for the State. Over the course of the investigation, witnesses having been murdered, injured and intimidated. Stanfield and Johnson have also emerged unscathed from previous efforts to put them behind bars.  amabhungane.org/analysis-cap…

The group are charged under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act and are accused of operating a criminal enterprise which unleashed a four-year wave of terror across Cape Town.

Ralph Stanfield and his wife Nicole Johnson will appear in Western Cape High Court this week alongside 12 of their co-accused on charges of murder, attempted murder, robbery and illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.

On 19 October 1977, the apartheid government banned The World and Weekend World newspapers and detained their editor, Percy Qoboza, and his deputy, Aggrey Klaaste. Just over a month earlier, Black Consciousness leader Steve Biko had died in police custody. The crackdown on 19 October also saw Black Consciousness organisations outlawed and scores of activists detained.   The day became known as Black Wednesday.

D-Day looms for alleged 28s gang boss Ralph Stanfield and his co-accused wife, Nicole Johnson, with the couple to appear in the Western Cape High Court for their organised crime trial. amabhungane.org/analysis-cap…

The Guptas’ raid on the rehabilitation fund was exposed in October 2016, when then finance minister Pravin Gordhan asked the Pretoria high court to issue an order confirming that he could not interfere in the decision by all the major banks to close the Guptas’ bank accounts. Gordhan was under huge political pressure to intervene after Cabinet – under then President Jacob Zuma – appointed him to an inter-ministerial task team that was supposed to “engage” with the banks. Gordhan not only boycotted the task team but took the highly unusual step of approaching the court and, in the process, delivered a never-before-seen Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) report on the Guptas’ financial affairs. The report showed that the FIC – the government agency that monitors all financial flows – had red-flagged R6.8-billion in “suspicious and unusual” Gupta-linked transactions, including R1.3-billion that had been transferred out of Optimum’s rehabilitation trust, a fund that is supposed to be ring-fenced to pay for the environmental clean-up after a mine shuts down. amabhungane.org/gordhan-blow…

It's become fashionable in some quarters to pretend that State Capture never happened. But now key Gupta functionaries Ronica Ragavan and Pushpaveni Govender have been convicted of fraud and money laundering involving R107.5m from the Optimum and Koornfontein mine rehabilitation trusts. Three Gupta-linked companies were also convicted. news24.com/southafrica/crime…