Senior financial sector specialist, World Bank · Washington DC
Testified
The commission's first witness on what to actually do about everything it has heard. Laura Pop is a senior financial sector specialist at the World Bank who works on anti-corruption, asset recovery and financial disclosure alongside the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and who has worked in more than twenty countries including South Africa. She gave expert evidence on Day 174, 16 September 2026, at the Bridgette Mabandla Justice College in Pretoria. Her proposition, per TimesLIVE, was that the tools a state already has will not necessarily clear infiltration out of itself: 'Criminal investigations or disciplinary investigations use some of the bodies that are already there, and what happens is that some countries have seen that these measures are not sufficient.' She gave two reasons. The bodies that run disciplinary hearings can themselves be captured, and a single criminal case against a single compromised official can take years. She took the panel through what Kenya, Moldova, Ukraine and Albania did instead, and recommended for South Africa a once-off, legally entrenched integrity evaluation of senior and high-risk criminal justice officials, independent, tightly defined and hedged with strong legal safeguards. Most of her evidence went to verification rather than declaration: per Eyewitness News, any such body 'must have the power to compel the production of financial and other necessary records from third-party repositories without relying on the evaluated individual to produce them voluntarily', and must be able to reach the assets of family members and third parties within the limits needed to establish unjustified wealth. She recommended working with the South African Revenue Service, said anyone refusing an assessment should face dismissal, and, per SABC News, put the limits of remedial training bluntly: 'You can't train people who don't have integrity.' This is expert evidence about systems. It makes no allegation against any person.
Laura PopWorld Bankvettingintegrity evaluationasset declarationsMadlanga Commission
This profile summarises testimony and evidence given on the public record before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry. It restates allegations as presented at the hearings and is not a finding of guilt, liability, or wrongdoing by any person.
Awaiting appearanceNo portrait on the public record yet
Key disclosures
Evidence and allegations
Why criminal and disciplinary cases are not enough on their own
The remedy can be captured, and one case can take years.
Per TimesLIVE, Pop told the commission that countries facing criminal infiltration of their justice systems have found the ordinary route insufficient: 'Criminal investigations or disciplinary investigations use some of the bodies that are already there, and what happens is that some countries have seen that these measures are not sufficient.' Her two reasons were that 'the bodies tasked with conducting the disciplinary hearings could themselves become captured, or their approach and practice might not be a match for the challenge', and that 'it can take years to have a criminal case against a single corrupt criminal justice officer adjudicated'. Per Bulletin she made the broader point that a functioning judiciary alone cannot guarantee effective justice where institutional weakness erodes accountability and public trust.
Kenya, Moldova, Ukraine and Albania
Four comparators, and the one she gave numbers for.
Per SABC News, Pop took the panel through judicial vetting in Kenya, pre-vetting in Moldova, hybrid assessment bodies in Ukraine that combined civil society with international experts, and the stricter Albanian model. Moldova's pre-vetting of candidates for the judicial self-governance bodies assessed financial integrity, tax compliance and compliance with ethical standards, and on her evidence '38% of the candidates passed', the lowest passing rate of her examples. She qualified it immediately: 'The consequences for this vetting were not particularly serious when compared to the Albanian case.' The comparators were offered as design options, not as a template; she said the design has to reflect country-specific risk.
A once-off integrity evaluation, tightly fenced
Senior and high-risk officials, legally entrenched, independent, with strong safeguards.
Per Eyewitness News, TimesLIVE and Inside Politics, Pop's recommendation for South Africa was an extraordinary, once-off, legally entrenched integrity evaluation of senior and high-risk officials across the criminal justice system, described in the reporting as a deep cleaning exercise. Her qualifiers were that it would have to be independent, tightly defined, and subject to strong legal safeguards. Per Bulletin she framed it as an exercise in holding the individual rights of the officials assessed against the public interest in criminal justice institutions that can be trusted.
Verification, not declaration
The power to compel third-party records, reach family assets, and check whether a lender could afford the loan.
Per Eyewitness News, Pop told the commission that an evaluating body 'must have the power to compel the production of financial and other necessary records from third-party repositories without relying on the evaluated individual to produce them voluntarily. It must provide a power of extending verification to assets and income of the evaluated person's family member and third parties within limits required to establish unjustified wealth of the evaluated person.' Her worked example was a loan declared by an official whose lender is not subject to any declaration obligation: 'Because sometimes the people who gave the loans are not subject to asset declarations. They weren't included in the asset declaration of the official; they're just as the source. So the commission needs to be able to go to the tax authority or, you know, to get records to see if this person could even afford to provide this loan.' She recommended collaboration with the South African Revenue Service.
Refusal, resignation and the limits of training
A person who refuses an assessment should face dismissal; training cannot supply integrity.
Per SABC News, Pop said anyone who refuses an integrity assessment should face dismissal, and unpacked what consequences should attach to resigning ahead of one. On the standard institutional response to a corruption finding she was flat: 'You can't train people who don't have integrity.' The resignation point lands on a pattern already in this record, where officials under investigation leave the employment relationship and the disciplinary process ends with it. Pop was speaking generally and named no South African official.
Timeline
How the account unfolded
16 Sep 2026
Gives expert evidence on vetting and integrity evaluation
Day 174. Pop tells the commission that criminal and disciplinary investigations are not on their own sufficient to remove infiltration from a criminal justice system, works through the Kenyan, Moldovan, Ukrainian and Albanian experience, and recommends a once-off legally entrenched integrity evaluation of senior and high-risk officials, with power to verify financial disclosures against third-party records.
“It can take years to have a criminal case against a single corrupt criminal justice officer adjudicated.”
Laura Pop, senior financial sector specialist at the World Bank, to the Madlanga Commission on Day 174, 16 September 2026, per TimesLIVE, explaining why she regards criminal prosecution alone as an insufficient response to criminal infiltration of a justice system.