Whistleblowing, Anti-Corruption and Policing In South Africa: Insights and Lessons

1. Introduction

Corruption continues to undermine South Africa's democratic institutions, with law enforcement often at the vanguard of this crisis. South Africa has made legal advancements for democracy, including legislation promoting transparency, accountability, and whistleblower protections. However, the enforcement and sincerity of these laws raise serious issues. Whistleblowing is often heralded as an invaluable and effective method for battling wrongdoing. Still, those who blow the whistle often confront suffering, organisational indifference, or complete dismissal, which undermines the purported aim of whistleblower laws. 

The institution given the mandate to uphold the law, the South African Police Service (SAPS), itself has been embroiled in corruption scandals, raising doubts on whether the institution can fight corruption internally and in society (Dlamini and Baloyi, 2020). Along with insufficient accountability mechanisms, political meddling and disjointed structures are also being investigated as issues (Budhram, 2015). It is seldom that we learn about the police's political instrumentalisation of the police. The recent exposé by the KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner General Mkhwanazi, who criticised the political meddling of the police, is both an exposé of the rot and a moment of reckoning. That is what I seek to analyse in this text.

2. Whistleblowing as a Tool for Justice in South Africa

Whistleblowing refers to the act of revealing misconduct by people working within an organisation. It serves the important function of bringing corruption, mismanagement, and unethical behaviour to light. In South Africa, the Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) of 2000, revised in 2017, serves as the guiding legislation for the protection of whistleblowers. This act protects employees who, in good faith, document workplace malpractices termed criminal or irregular conduct. Regardless of these protections, the practical reality of whistleblowing as a tool of justice is riddled with challenges.

Research shows that under the South African framework, whistleblowers face backlash, career stagnation, and emotional trauma. In recent years, the case for incentivising whistleblowing has garnered attention. For instance, Lubisi and Bezuidenhout (2016) argue that financial incentivisation for whistleblowers, similar to the U.S. False Claims Act, could offset the negative consequences of reporting. South Africa, however, remains hesitant to adopt such a model, which could lead to reporting stagnation. 

Another important consideration in the strategy to encourage whistleblowing is organisational culture. Soni et al. (2015) find that perceptions of justice regarding processes within an organisation, how fair they believe they are treated, and a just and responsive internal environment can catalyse whistleblowing, while toxic or indifferent cultures deter it. The absence of confidential reporting systems and witness protection possibilities further adds to the disincentive. Nortje (2023) argues that South Africa's criminal justice system is particularly vulnerable because the gap in law and institutional frameworks designed to safeguard whistleblowers in criminal cases is substantial in the system assessment. 

While the system continues to disempower whistleblowers and unapologetically underscores the sheer indifference to people's lives in South Africa, as the persistently timid or seemingly disinterested institutional approach, along with the subsequent ineffectual action, offers little means of turning the tides in the socio-political reality a brave shift is needed in the governing and structural socio-political approach to be proactive in the fight against corruption.

3. Policing and the Fight Against Corruption

The South African Police Service (SAPS) has a constitutional responsibility to maintain public order, uphold the law, and investigate any offence committed against the law. Another critical aspect of this mandate is tackling corruption within the institution and in the broader context of South African society. In 2018, the SAPS implemented its Anti-Corruption Strategy, which is guided by the pillars of leadership, prevention, detection, investigation, and resolution of corruption. This strategy also aimed to revise the organisational structure to include lifestyle and integrity audits and limit officers' outside employment, especially in high-risk liquor and taxi industries. 

Due to deeply embedded structural issues, SAPS still faces major challenges in enforcing anti-corruption policies. Faull (2016) cites pervasive political patronage, weak self-regulatory controls, and a lack of stable leadership as major organisational gaps. Officers tend to work in poorly compensated positions, which, coupled with the bribery and corruption normalisation of society, leads to greater daily public interface. Mofokeng (2016) notes that the lack of public trust in police the police in the context of corruption scandals impedes the public's willingness to support internal investigation processes or whistleblowing.

Oversight structures such as the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) are ineffective because Dlamini and Baloyi (2020) IPID lacks both independence and the resources needed to prosecute the identified misconduct properly. Ivković and Sauerman (2015) also note that the democratic policing norms are yet to be fully adopted into the SAPS culture, as many officers remain loyal to informal peer norms rather than the institution's ethics. Theoretically, the SAPS has the capability to implement both internal and external anti-corruption controls. Enforcement, however, is reactive and inconsistent. As Budhram (2015) points out, intelligence-led policing is seldom put into practice even when endorsed, "on the books",  due to insufficient operational capability and leadership inertia.

While the SAPS Anti-Corruption Strategy signifies an endorsement of reform, SAPS's lack of collusion will most define its success. Without these basic elements, the SAPS will remain limited by the internalised socioeconomic pressures that thwart its capacity to uphold justice in corruption cases.

4. The Mkhwanazi Revelations: A Turning Point or More of the Same?

General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's open confessions in 2024 regarding political meddling in policing gave out one of South Africa's rare open secrets in the security domain. Both publicly and privately, he blamed higher political authorities for strategic meddling in policing, interference with appointment freezes, ward block multidisciplinary layoffs, and shielding of corrupt officers. Notably, these claims reshaped the discourse concerning systemic political capture and, in turn, brought life to debates regarding the institutional autonomy and credibility of the SAPS. 

While Mkhwanazi's disclosures echo longstanding concerns about SAPS being compromised by patronage networks, the response, or lack thereof, from the political establishment has been telling. Rather than triggering immediate reforms or inquiries, the revelations were met with denial or silence, revealing the deep entrenchment of corruption within state institutions (Hlongwane, 2018). This inertia not only undermines public trust but signals that whistleblowers, even high-ranking officials, face isolation or retaliation rather than institutional support.

The implications for SAPS's anti-corruption effectiveness are profound. As Faull (2016) argues, the absence of clear internal accountability frameworks and leadership commitment enables the normalisation of deviance. Mkhwanazi's case thus underscores the importance of independent oversight bodies and the professionalisation of policing beyond political influence.

Importantly, his statements function as an act of whistleblowing themselves, challenging a culture of silence. However, the limited institutional response reinforces criticisms by Dlamini and Baloyi (2020) that current investigative mechanisms within SAPS remain too weak, politicised, or fragmented to yield tangible change. As Bocchiola et al. (2020) warn, whistleblowing risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative without legal, ethical, and operational reforms.

Ultimately, unless Mkhwanazi's disclosures lead to systemic changes—such as merit-based appointments, depoliticised oversight, and whistleblower protection—his exposé may be remembered not as a turning point, but as yet another unheeded warning in South Africa's long battle against institutional corruption.

5. Policy Recommendations

It is clear that endemic corruption and improvements in policing effectiveness in South Africa require a multi-pronged approach. First, the protection and incentives provided to whistleblowers must be strengthened. Evidence shows that insiders are significantly deterred from exposing corruption due to fear of retaliation. Robust legal frameworks and tangible rewards that encourage disclosures can help foster institutional accountability.

Second, it is crucial to prevent political interference with anti-corruption units. South Africa has a history of politicised policing, which undermines the required impartial autonomy. The lack of autonomy necessary to conduct impartial investigations directly results from South Africa's longstanding history of politicised policing. The creation of independent oversight bodies with statutory powers enables the protection of investigations from partisan interference, thus maintaining public trust.

Third, ongoing training and strict disciplinary actions mandated to improve police professionalism and ethics must be embraced. The literature indicates that entrenched corruption often thrives where ethical standards are low or unenforced. Integrity must be ingrained within the organisation from recruitment to continual professional development. 

Fourth, the state must encourage the creation of citizen-friendly reporting tools and use digital technologies to facilitate the reporting of misconduct, particularly to the public. Facilitating accessibility and offering anonymity can empower communities, especially marginalised communities, to help in oversight.

Lastly, fostering transparency and periodic audits of police agencies will establish systematic controls to prevent corrupt activities. Known verifiable controls, such as transparent fund allocation and independent audits, increase responsibility and communicate a genuine willingness to reform. 

These emphasise notable changes and additions to South African anti-corruption and policing efforts, as practised and based on protection, self-governance, professional and civic engagement, and transparency.

6. Conclusion

In this article, we have examined the complex interplay between whistleblowing, anti-corruption efforts, and policing in South Africa, addressing how institutional weaknesses and political interference undermine accountability. The central argument posits that without systemic reform, efforts to combat corruption within the police will remain superficial. Restoring justice and rebuilding public trust require comprehensive measures that protect whistleblowers, enhance police professionalism, and ensure transparency. Crucially, anti-corruption units must operate free from political influence to be effective. Moving forward, South Africa must commit to sustained structural change that empowers both institutions and citizens, fostering a policing culture rooted in integrity and responsiveness. Only through such transformation can meaningful progress be achieved.

Dr Sunday Israel Oyebamiji is a researcher and academic mentor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), South Africa. He writes in his capacity.

References

Bocchiola, M., et al., 2020. Heroes or villains? A legislative, ethical and policy assessment of whistleblowing. In A research agenda for studies of corruption (pp. 158-171). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Budhram, T., 2015. Intelligence-led policing: A proactive approach to combating corruption. South African Crime Quarterly.

Dlamini, S., & Baloyi, T., 2020. An evaluation of independent investigative mechanisms in the South African police services to control corruption. International Journal of Social Science, 3(1), 105-114.

Faull, A., 2016. BRING THEM INTO LINE: Managing corruption in SAPS and metro police departments. SA Crime Quarterly, 2008(23), 21-27.

Hlongwane, P., 2018. The anti-corruption institutions in South Africa: A panacea to governance ills? Southern African Public Law.

Kutnjak Ivković, S., & Sauerman, A. (2015). Threading the thin blue line: transition towards democratic policing and the integrity of the South African Police Service. Policing and society, 25(1), 25-52.

Lubisi, S., and H. Bezuidenhout. "Blowing the whistle for personal gain in the Republic of South Africa: An option for consideration in the fight against fraud?." Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research 18.1 (2016): 49-62.

Mofokeng, J., 2016. The apple does not fall far from the tree: Can society corrupt police officials?. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, 8(2), 150-164.

Nortje, J. G. J. (2023). The protection of whistleblowers in South African criminal cases. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(6), 1444-1457.

Soni, F., et al., 2015. Perceptions of justice as a catalyst for whistle-blowing by trainee auditors in South Africa. Meditari Accountancy Research, 23(1), 118-140.