WHEN PRIVACY STARTS TO LOOK LIKE IMPUNITY
A public institution does not need to reveal every private detail. It does need to prove that private claims have been tested.
A medical certificate can protect someone who is genuinely unable to testify. It can also delay a public process whose credibility depends on witnesses appearing when required.
That is why the real issue is not whether illness should be believed. It is whether an institution has a reliable way to distinguish legitimate incapacity from an untested excuse.
Public frustration grows when several witnesses fall ill shortly before they are expected to appear. The pattern does not prove abuse, but it changes the burden on the institution. Each new absence begins to carry the weight of the previous ones.
If the institution simply accepts every certificate, the public may conclude that accountability can be postponed indefinitely. If it responds by demanding that diagnoses and medical histories be exposed, it risks turning legitimate scrutiny into unnecessary intrusion.
The better answer lies between those extremes.
Advocate Mpilonhle Baloyi argues that medical information must be sufficiently explicit for the commission to assess whether a witness is genuinely unfit to testify. At the same time, she stresses that detailed medical information does not automatically have to be made public and that human dignity remains central.
This creates an important institutional distinction.
The commission may need access to the evidence.
The public may only need assurance that the evidence was properly examined.
Those are not the same thing.
The commission can request clearer information, authenticate the certificate with the practitioner, seek an independent assessment or compel the doctor to account for the certificate under oath. Where fabrication or deliberate abuse is established, the conversation raises the possibility of professional and criminal consequences.
The value of this approach is that it avoids both automatic suspicion and automatic acceptance.
A genuinely ill witness is not treated as dishonest because the timing is inconvenient. But a doctor’s signature does not become a shield against further scrutiny when the certificate fails to explain why testimony cannot proceed.
That principle reaches far beyond commissions of inquiry.
Employers face the same problem when medical leave interrupts disciplinary proceedings. Regulators face it when health claims delay professional hearings. Boards, courts and public bodies confront it whenever a private limitation affects a wider institutional obligation.
The strongest systems do not make private information public by default. They make the verification process visible.
People should understand what evidence is required, who is allowed to examine it, how authenticity is established and what happens when the information remains inadequate.
The diagnosis can remain confidential.
The procedure cannot remain mysterious.
Public trust is not built by exposing everything. It is built when the institution can show that what remained private was still properly tested.
A sick note should protect genuine illness. It should not create a space where accountability quietly disappears.
Catch up on all Making Sense episodes here: https://www.enca.com/making-sense-podcast