Why is Senzo Mchunu untouchable?

South African politics has never been a gentle sport.

It is contested not only at the ballot box, but in the daily battles of party factions, public narratives, commissions of inquiry, and – most telling – through the uneven hand of accountability.

The latest developments following the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry expose this uncomfortable truth.

The state’s announcement of a new task team to probe 14 officials across the SA Police Service, Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department, and Ekurhuleni municipality was presented as evidence that the state is finally acting.

After years of commissions yielding thick reports and thin consequences, this was meant to signal resolve.

Yet, one omission has overshadowed the entire exercise: police minister Senzo Mchunu, currently on special leave, is not on the list.

This is no trivial detail. The commission’s interim report made findings against Mchunu, according to the Presidency.

While it stopped short of formal recommendations, the findings were serious enough to raise questions about judgment, oversight and political responsibility.

In any system genuinely committed to accountability, such findings would at least warrant investigation, suspension (not special leave) or political consequences.

Yet, Mchunu remains untouched. The selective application of accountability invites an unavoidable question: is President Cyril Ramaphosa protecting Mchunu and, if so, why?

ALSO READ: Madlanga commission: Ramaphosa accused of protecting ‘comrade’ Mchunu

South Africans have seen this movie before. When former minister Malusi Gigaba was forced out under the weight of state capture findings, the response was swift and unforgiving.

His personal life and political conduct were relentlessly scrutinised. The Presidency moved quickly.

There was no prolonged hesitation, no careful analysing of “interim findings”, no insistence that process must take its full course before action could be considered.

The contrast could not be starker. Gigaba was politically disposable. Mchunu, it seems, is not.

This is not about guilt or innocence. It is about consistency.

If interim findings can end one career, why are they suddenly insufficient when the individual involved occupies a more strategically valuable position in the ruling party?

Ramaphosa’s presidency has long sold itself as a reformist project rooted in clean governance and the rule of law.

But commissions that produce consequences only for the politically isolated do not strengthen democracy.

By excluding Mchunu, while moving against others, Ramaphosa reinforces the perception that accountability is governed not by principle, but by proximity to power.

The danger is the signal this sends to the public. Citizens are told to trust institutions and wait for due process.

ALSO READ: Madlanga commission: Mkhwanazi’s deputy says ‘not appropriate’ for Mchunu to contact him directly

But when outcomes appear selective, cynicism hardens into disengagement.

This is not just about Mchunu. It is about whether accountability in South Africa is real or insincere.

Whether commissions exist to uncover truth, or to manage public anger. Whether the Presidency is willing to act against all wrongdoing, or only against wrongdoing that does not threaten internal party balance.

Mchunu’s position seems precarious, yet Ramaphosa’s inaction suggests a calculated gamble. Ramaphosa may be banking on Mchunu’s loyalty, or hoping to shield himself from controversy.

Whatever the reason, it’s likely Mchunu will cling to his post. If pressure mounts – like happened with former health minister Zweli Mkhize after the Digital Vibes scandal – a “voluntary” resignation might be negotiated, allowing Mchunu to save face.

Otherwise, he’ll likely remain on leave, waiting out Ramaphosa’s term. Either way, the status quo prevails – no bold moves, no decisive action.

If Ramaphosa wants to reclaim the moral authority he once promised, selective courage will not be enough.

The law must apply even when it is inconvenient. Political responsibility must extend even to those who are useful.

Until then, South Africans will keep asking the same question, not loudly, but persistently: who is truly accountable in this country and who will always be too important to touch?

NOW READ: Suliman Carrim’s Madlanga commission: Judgement to be delivered on Thursday