Why Justice Madlanga Played Fadiel Adams Audio Despite Objection

 

The appearance of National Coloured Congress MP Fadiel Adams before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry hit a dramatic snag over a secret two hour audio recording made in January 2025 by Investigating Directorate Against Corruption Advocate Drushantha Ramsamy.

Initial proceedings were adjourned to allow Adams to review the recording after he previously demanded its release to expose alleged inconsistencies in Ramsamy testimony. However upon resuming his appearance Adams abruptly pivoted. Expressing outrage over what he categorized as an illicit unconsented recording that violated whistleblower protections and his privacy he announced his intention to file criminal charges against Ramsamy. To preserve his upcoming legal action Adams requested that the commission refrain from playing the tape publicly.

Despite his objections the commission proceeded to examine and play the recording to scrutinize contradictions regarding how Adams made contact with the unit.

Legal Analysis: Why Commission Powers Override Witness Objections

Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga decision to move forward with the audio recording despite Adams objections reflects established administrative and constitutional law regarding Commissions of Inquiry in South Africa.

1. Inquisitorial Nature vs Civil Litigation Commissions of Inquiry operate under an inquisitorial framework rather than an adversarial trial framework. Under the Commissions Act of 1947 a commission primary mandate is truth finding for public interest. A witness cannot unilaterally withhold relevant evidence from an inquiry simply because they intend to use that same evidence in private litigation or criminal proceedings against another party.
2. Admissibility under Regulation 31 of the Interception of Communications Act South African law allows single party consent under Section 4 of the act. If Advocate Ramsamy was a direct participant in the meeting her act of recording even without Adams consent does not automatically render the recording illegal under statutory law. Consequently the commission is well within its rights to admit the recording as valid material evidence. 
3. Inherent Power to Determine Relevance The chairperson of a commission holds broad discretionary power to subpoena receive and evaluate any evidence necessary to fulfill its terms of reference. Once a piece of evidence is presented to test the credibility of a witness or clarify conflicting accounts on record the chairperson duty to establish the factual truth takes precedence over a witness preference to preserve evidence for independent civil claims.