whistle-blower

The investigation triggered by a whistleblower involves three investigators and the original whistleblower who is prepared to confirm the reports she made and provide supporting documentary evidence.

“"The Commissioners will actually hear evidence from four witnesses. Three witnesses cover the same issues but they play different roles. ... The investigations were triggered by a whistle-blower... The original whistle-blower is prepared to testify to confirm the correctness of the reports she had made to the investigators, and any documentary evidence she may have given in support of her report."”

The whistleblower is a current SAPS member with serious personal concerns, granted anonymity under the Protected Disclosures Act, with no circulation of her identity and requesting the Commission to maintain anonymity throughout.

“"That whistle-blower, however, is a member of SAPS, is currently in service, and has got serious personal concerns... Her disclosure was then initiated in terms of the Protected Disclosures Act, and her name has not been circulated or published in any manner. She would like to Commission to provide the necessary evidence, but would prefer that the anonymity extends."”

The whistle-blower fears that if her identity is disclosed within the SAPS environment, she may suffer pushback, occupational detriment, intimidation, or other consequences that might affect her employment.

“She fears that if her identity is now disclosed, she may suffer pushback and some level of occupational detriment, including intimidation or any other that may eventually affect her employment.”

The whistle-blower requests the Commission extend protections afforded by the Protected Disclosures Act to allow her to testify anonymously and not disclose her name or physical identity, moving the application for an in-camera testimony to retain anonymity within the SAPS community.

“Her request is for the Commission to extend the protection afforded her by the Protected Disclosures Act, and as a whistle-blower, and not require her to disclose either her name or her physical identity and it is on that basis that she moves the application for an in camera.”

The whistle-blower will testify virtually/remotely and her voice will not be distorted, but people impacted by her evidence will know who she is, though the broader SAPS community will not know her identity.

“The idea is that she, as with Witness N, will be testifying virtually, remotely, her voice will not be distorted. It is accepted that those people who are impacted by her evidence will know who she is, and that has always been the case, even during the stage of investigation. But the broader SAPS community does not know who she is, and that is what she is quite desirous to retain and that is the sole basis for why she is in camera.”

The whistle-blower was initially reluctant to testify and had to be persuaded, only finally agreeing the day before or the day of the hearing with the necessary support.

“She was quite reluctant to place herself on this platform, and it took some persuasion, and I think she was only the day before yesterday, or yesterday, finally persuaded with the necessary level of support to present herself before you.”

The whistle-blower stands by her original report and every finding the investigators made at that time, but is interested in retaining her anonymity and not being known as the instigator of the investigation.

“She stands by her report ? Absolutely. She stands by everything the investigators did ? At her instance, she does. She was just interested in retaining the anonymity and not be known that she was the instigator of the entire investigation.”

Consultations with the whistle-blower resolved issues around additional factual clarity in the investigation which were not contained in the original report, and her testimony serves to cure hearsay evidence by providing direct factual clarity.

“The question that arose was, in light of some facts not contained in the original report, can the investigators purport to give clarity on that? ... if she avails herself to deal with all material facts around that issue, then any hearsay that would have been testified to would be cured by her own appearance.”

The whistle-blower's identity, name, and report were always available to the evidence leaders; the issue was how she would appear and maintain her anonymity in the Commission hearings.

“Her identity, her name and her report was always available. It was a question of how are those presented to the Commission.”

Members of the South African Police Service sometimes cannot find a complainant who lodged a complaint, especially when complaints are reported anonymously as by whistle-blowers.

“in the execution of our duties as members of the South African Police Service , yes , there are instances where you find out that a person who lodged a complaint , you cannot find him . There are instances whereby people reporting things on an anonymity basis , like your so - called whistle - blower .”