When a crisis strikes, setting up a commission of inquiry is often the knee-jerk response. But with half-a-billion rands blown on the most high-profile probes, there is little to show for them. The Marikana commission - at a cost of R153-million - has pushed South Africa's spend on commissions to more than R500-million.The ANC government has over the past 15 years established a further 11 commissions of inquiry to investigate a wide range of allegations.story_article_left1Their cost has also been substantial, well in excess of R350-million, although the full amount has not been made public. Supplementing these inquiries have been several high-level reviews - the cost of which is also not fully known.Despite this and often adverse findings against the government and its officials, very few of the recommendations have been acted upon and few people fired or disciplined after any critical judgment against them in the reports.Some inquiries have been criticised as entirely political.A review of some of the most influential commissions of inquiry and reviews over the past decade reveals a litany of recommendations and findings that, ultimately, have not led to any fundamental change or consequence.COMMISSION: Hefer inquiry into allegations of spying against national director of public prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka.Established: September 19 2003.Report issued: Jan 7 2004.Headed by: Justice Joos Hefer.Purpose: To establish whether Ngcuka was an apartheid spy, in the employ of the state security services before 1994, and, after its mandate was extended, whether he had abused his position as a result.Political background: Prior to media reports alleging Ngcuka was an apartheid spy, he had suggested there was a prima facie case against Jacob Zuma. He had also pursued charges against Schabir Shaik. Mac Maharaj and Vusi Mona were also facing charges under Ngcuka. Maharaj led the allegations against Ngcuka.Key findings: The inquiry found no evidence to substantiate the claim Ngcuka was an apartheid spy: "I find that Messrs Maharaj and Shaik's allegations of spying have not been established. Mr Ngcuka probably never acted as an agent for a pre-1994 government security service."Outcome: In July 2004, Ngcuka resigned from his position. His situation had been exacerbated by a dispute with public protector Lawrence Mushwana, who had recommended that Ngcuka be disciplined for his remarks about there being a prima facie case against Zuma.Cost: Unknown.full_story_image_hleft1COMMISSION: Ginwala inquiry into the suspension of national director of public prosecutions Vusi Pikoli.Established: October 3 2007.Report Issued: November 2008.Headed by: Dr Frene Ginwala, former speaker of parliament.Purpose: On September 24 2007, president Thabo Mbeki suspended Pikoli. He cited an "irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship between the minister of justice and constitutional development and the NDPP". The commission was to establish whether this action was just and Pikoli fit for office.Political background: It was alleged Pikoli was suspended because he had pursued charges against former police commissioner Jackie Selebi as well as Jacob Zuma.Key finding: "Advocate Pikoli should be restored to the office of NDPP."Outcome: Pikoli was not restored to the position. He pursued the matter in court and was awarded an interdict against the appointment of a successor in August 2009. In November 2009, he reached a R7.5-million settlement to halt his legal bid for reinstatement.Cost: Unknown.full_story_image_hleft2REVIEW: Presidential review committee on state-owned enterprises.Established: May 12 2010.Report issued: May 28 2013.Headed by: Riah Phiyega.Political background: The review report states: "The Polokwane conference of the ANC called for a review of the performance of SOEs and for policy options regarding the role of SOEs in the developmental state."Purpose: To examine the role, nature and structure of SOEs in South Africa and to recommend how to make them more efficient.Key findings: The review put forward a range of short-, medium- and long-term recommendations. Among the short-term recommendations, it suggested: "A strategy for SOEs must be formulated and communicated"; "A white paper for SOEs must be drafted and adopted by the cabinet"; "The process of formulating an SOE bill must be initiated"; "A framework for the appointment of boards must be developed"; and "A register of noncompliant individuals and companies must be initiated".Outcome: No white paper has yet been tabled, nor has an SOE-specific strategy been communicated. No SOE bill has yet been presented to parliament.No framework for board appointments has been formalised. If anything has been initiated, it has not yet been presented or communicated to the public enterprises portfolio committee.Cost: At least R46-million (an adjusted appropriation of R38-million in 2011 and a further R8-million spent on consultants in 2012). Final cost unknown.full_story_image_hleft3REVIEW: Ad hoc committee review of chapter 9 and associated institutions.Established: September 21 2006.Report issued: July 31 2007.Headed by: Kader Asmal.Purpose: "To review the state institutions supporting constitutional democracy as listed in chapter 9 of the constitution ... [to assess] whether the current and intended constitutional and legal mandates of these institutions are suitable for the South African environment ..."Political background: Following widespread criticism of the way in which chapter 9 institutions functioned, particularly whether they were suitably funded, a parliamentary review was established.Key findings: The report put forward detailed findings for each chapter 9 institution. With regard to the office of the public protector, it recommended its budget be raised as it was deemed too small; it found the National Youth Commission needed to be reconstituted and that the Pan South African Language Board be abolished and some of its functions incorporated into other institutions.Outcome: Two years after the report was tabled, it had not been debated in parliament. No formal process was ever established to align those institutions critiqued with the recommendations that affected them.Cost: Unknown.full_story_image_hleft4COMMISSION: Ngoepe inquiry into the April 11 2001 Ellis Park disasterEstablished: April 18 2001.Report issued: September 26 2002.Headed by: Justice BM Ngoepe.Purpose: To examine the causes and determine any culpability for the Ellis Park stampede in which 43 people died and more than 150 were injured when football teams Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates met at the stadium. It was the worst sporting tragedy in South African history.Key findings: The report found a wide range of shortcomings, both in the planning and the conduct of police and private security officers on the day. They included a poor forecast of attendance; an absence of overall command; an untimely announcement of tickets being sold out; a failure to abide by soccer bodies Fifa and Safa regulations; corruption on the part of some security members and a general dereliction of duty. While the final report found no one directly criminally culpable, it recommended the courts take action where necessary.Outcome: The report was widely criticised for not finding anyone directly guilty of wrongdoing. Ngoepe would later lash out at "selectively illiterate" journalists who claimed as much.Most recommendations were enacted - but very slowly. A Venue Safety Bill went through at least 23 stages but had not been adopted three years after the tragedy.A relief fund was set up, with an initial R15000 paid to the families of victims. Then justice minister Penuell Maduna said in March 2002 that no one would be criminally charged.Cost: Unknown...