Whistleblowing in South African |
Publication |
Global Corruption Report 2003 |
Date | 2002-11-27 |
Reporter |
Richard Calland |
Web Links |
One major obstacle in the fight against corruption is the reluctance of individuals to ‘blow the whistle’ on corrupt activities.
Fear of retribution from employers or colleagues dissuades many from reporting cases of corruption. In South Africa, whistleblowers are often seen as troublemakers or, in South African vernacular, impimpis (apartheid-era informants). In addition to being stigmatised as traitors, whistleblowers who reported misconduct before the introduction of the Protected Disclosures Act in 2000 found no legal protection or support from their government.
A parliamentary committee produced a draft law after a series of scandals in which whistleblowers suffered because of their actions, including several who were hounded from their jobs. Modelled on the British Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998, the law provides legal recourse to whistleblowers who suffer professional loss as a result of their actions. The Protected Disclosures Act, which came into force in February 2001, sets out procedures by which both public and private sector employees who report unlawful or corrupt activities by their employer or colleagues are protected from reprisals. The law is intended to encourage honest employees to report wrongdoing.
But for such a law to work at least three things must happen. First, there must be the political will to confront a culture that scorns whistleblowers. Second, employers must be trained to implement a viable whistleblowing policy that allows employees to raise concerns without fear of reprisal. Third, workers themselves must know and understand their rights under the law in order to be able to report misconduct in a proper manner.
After helping to draft the new law, the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) is now addressing these three aspects in an effort to put the law to work. ODAC’s mission is ‘to promote open and transparent democracy; foster a culture of corporate and government accountability; and assist people to realise their human rights’. By offering free legal advice, ODAC seeks to help individuals deal with the difficult choices they face when deciding whether to blow the whistle or remain silent. The group monitors and advocates effective implementation of the law and provides training for employers in both the public and private sectors. To help whistleblowers, ODAC also established a legal helpline (0800-Lalela, meaning ‘Listen’ in the Xhosa language), based on the model employed by the British NGO Public Concern at Work.
The new law is essential to the promotion of access to information. Under protection of the law, whistleblowers are better able to get information about corruption out into the public domain.
Civil society groups such as ODAC and Transparency South Africa recognise the value of the law and are redoubling their efforts to put the legislation into practice.
With acknowledgements to Richard Calland and Global Corruption Report 2003.