|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Organisations across civil society led by Corruption Watch (CW) have called for the Department of Justice (DoJ) to consider extending the deadline for public comments for the Protected Disclosures Bill, 2026. The group notes serious gaps in the current version of the Bill and inadequate public awareness as its reasons.
While there are important elements of the Bill in its current form that have not been addressed, a greater and more urgent need is for members of the public to know more about what contributions they can make. We are of the view that there have not been sufficient public-facing endeavours by the DoJ to help make the process of submissions richer and more meaningful.
The amendments needed in the Bill are specific and urgent, but also achievable, with some rooted in international best practice from which the DoJ may glean useful insights. The Civil Society Working Group on State Capture endorsed a position paper developed by the Legal Resources Centre, the Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa-Southern Africa (PPLAAF-SA), and Open Secrets which outlines best practice for the enhancement of protection for whistle-blowers.
The Whistleblower Support Platform for Reform network, currently consisting of CW, Whistleblower House, PPLAAF, and the Southern African Institute for Responsive and Accountable Governance, has also collectively and extensively published research on the practical whistleblower protections extending up to psycho-social support. So has the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse and many others.
Civil society’s capacity to support the process is ready. We ask Parliament and the DoJ to walk the final distance with us.
Key areas of the Bill that are non-negotiables and in need of urgent attention:
1. Risks in current reporting mechanism: The group does not support the approach stipulated in the Bill of a retired judge, appointed by the president, with its resourcing and reporting structures determined by the ministry of justice. It is our view that this approach cannot anchor a national whistle-blower protection system in circumstances where no clear and comprehensive protection strategy for whistle-blowers has been developed. The Zondo Commission required multiple commissioners and years of work to document a portion of South Africa’s corruption. One person cannot protect the next generation of those who expose it.
The Bill is further silent on the tenure of such an appointee. A way forward could be that the retired chief justice route be considered as an immediate interim anchor intervention while this Bill is being finalised. This measure could cover the gap between now and finalisation of the Bill, by which time an independent Protected Disclosures Commission or Whistle-blower Regulatory Authority, appointed through Parliament, funded directly by and reporting to the National Assembly (and not the Executive) with presence across all provinces is established.
2. Inadequate support for dismissed whistle-blowers: The Bill does not cover financial relief or support for whistle-blowers who may find themselves in need of emergency income support. There is no mandatory timeline for interim or immediate relief. Furthermore, there is no mechanism for the removal of implicated parties pending investigation, and thus no protection for disclosers. A whistle-blower dismissed from work will face up to 12 to 18 months without income before any determination is made. Economic attrition is the primary weapon used against disclosers, as we have seen in many media reports.
We call for:
- Mandatory interim relief for whistle-blowers currently without protection under the current Protected Disclosures Act within 21 days,
- A presumption of reinstatement pending determination,
- An emergency income support fund,
- Free legal advice right from the point of disclosure, and
- Access to psychological services should be legislated within the Bill for immediate access of counselling services.
3. Risk of retaliation not suitably addressed: Section 5(h) strips protection from disclosures made to avoid disciplinary action. The lived experiences of whistle-blowers who experienced workplace retaliations prove that disciplinary proceedings are frequently initiated by employers as the opening act of retaliation. Section 13 criminalises disclosers who “ought reasonably to have known” their information was false, a negligence standard for criminal liability that will be used as a threat against honest but imprecise disclosures. Furthermore, section 27 allows employers, who are often the perpetrators of workplace retaliation, to revoke the protection of their own employees thus posing a direct conflict of interest. These provisions require urgent redrafting.
4. Exclusion from financial awards for public servants: Most of South Africa’s corruption takes place in and around state institutions. Public servants carry the greatest exposure and risk in disclosing it. Excluding them from financial awards removes the one incentive available to those whom South Africa most urgently needs to encourage to blow the whistle. The exclusion must be removed and aligned with international best practice where public servants are not excluded. Awards must also be extended beyond criminal convictions to include civil recovery, asset forfeiture, and Special Investigating Unit proceedings.
5. Bill remains anchored in the employment relationship: Despite expanding the “discloser” definition, the Bill’s language, remedies, and institutional architecture remain rooted in employer-employee dynamics. Civil society organisations and media bodies which have been among the most effective accountability channels in South Africa may only be recognised as authorised persons if overly burdensome requirements are met. The Bill must be redrafted to match its stated scope in both language and operational design.
6. Anonymous disclosure rights lack technical infrastructure: Section 11(2) grants anonymous disclosure rights, while section 11(3) requires oral disclosures to be signed, contradicting the anonymity factor. Neither provision mandates the encrypted, secure technical infrastructure needed to make anonymity real. The contradiction must be resolved and minimum technical security standards must be prescribed by regulation.
7. No immunity for evidence gathering: A whistle-blower who takes documents to prove their disclosure may simultaneously commit a criminal offence. The EU Directive, France’s Sapin II law, and other jurisdictions have resolved this with proportionate immunity provisions. South Africa’s Bill does not address it. We call for the insertion of a proportionate immunity clause protecting disclosers who acquire information which is reasonably necessary for making a protected disclosure.
8. Lack of accountability for reprisals: Whistle-blowers are unlikely to come forward if they do not have confidence that retaliation will be taken seriously, investigated, and sanctioned. Whereas the Bill prohibits occupational detriment and detrimental action and criminalises contraventions, the framework does not yet provide sufficient clarity on how reprisals will be investigated, prioritised, and prosecuted in practice. The Bill would thus benefit from clearer mechanisms to ensure that serious reprisals against whistle-blowers, including threats, intimidation, harassment, and violence, receive appropriately urgent investigative attention and prosecutorial oversight. This is important both for the protection of whistle-blowers and for reinforcing the broader deterrent and accountability objectives of the framework.
We demand the following from the process:
- A postponement of the deadline for public submissions to a later date to allow for further public engagement with the Bill.
- An intentional public awareness campaign educating the public about the importance of whistle-blowing and contributing to the process of reforming whistle-blower protection legislation.
For media enquiries contact:
Oteng Makgotlwe
Cell: 076 473 8336 E-mail: OtengM@corruptionwatch.org.za
Organisations and individuals that contributed and or support this statement and its contents include:
- The Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution
- Courage Hub SA
- Open Secrets
- PPLAAF and PPLAAF-SA
- Good Governance Africa
- Legal Resources Centre
- Lawyers for Human Rights
- The Campaign for Free Expression
- Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse
- Whistleblower Support Platform
- Thandeka Gqubule-Mbeki
- Martha Ngoye
