Imagine if the public had no access to the jaw-dropping allegations of corruption and criminality revealed at the Madlanga commission.
Or if the media was not allowed to broadcast the revelations and allegations of collusion between the police and alleged criminals, political interference, procurement fraud and the torture and killing of suspects by police.
Initially, the Madlanga commission sought to hold its proceedings in closed sessions, at which the media and the public would not be allowed to hear witness testimony. This would be done to protect witnesses and ongoing police investigations, it said.
The media raised the alarm about the approach, citing open justice principles and its role in public oversight and arguing that secrecy could harm public confidence. An agreement was reached that witnesses may testify remotely and off-camera when necessary.
But in the wake of Marius van der Merwe’s brutal murder last Friday, justice minister Mmamoloko Kubayi has suggested a need to restrict live broadcasting of testimonies.
She wants the commission to revisit the approach and consider returning to the initial position it abandoned before it was threatened with litigation. This would ensure “there isn’t any threat”, she said.
According to Kubayi, the public and the media were able to identify van der Merwe as Witness D, which led to the call for a review.
Van der Merwe, otherwise known as Witness D, was gunned down weeks after he provided in-camera testimony to the commission, where he detailed how senior Ekurhuleni metro and SAPS police officers allegedly tortured a suspect to death and then plotted to cover up their actions.
Like three other police witnesses before him, his testimony could be heard, but his identity was protected.
A former employee of Ekurhuleni’s metro police, Van der Merwe owned a security company and was also involved in the fight against illegal miners and providing security at a local informal settlement.
It has also been reported that there had been two previous attempts on his life this year, the first taking place “months ago”, which means the attempt preceded his appearance before the commission.
At the time of writing, police had “identified three people of interest” but were none the wiser on what could be the motive behind Witness D’s killing.
For Kubayi’s first port of call to be media restrictions when no such link has been established is perplexing and scapegoating the media at worst.
This means Kubayi’s reasons for seeking a change in how the commission does its work is based on suppositions. What if, in the end, police find that Van der Merwe’s killing has nothing to do with the commission? As a minister responsible for the justice portfolio, we worry about her knee-jerk, callous reaction. Her portfolio requires her to show deference to facts and evidence.
Van der Merwe’s assassination occurs against the backdrop of a country that has seen a rise in the killing of whistle-blowers in recent years, including Babita Deokaran, Ekurhuleni auditor Mpho Mafole and others. These men and women had not been witnesses in any commission, and their deaths were not linked to any media broadcast.
For Kubayi’s first port of call to be media restrictions when no such link has been established is perplexing and scapegoating the media at worst.
She presented her call for the review in witness testimony coverage as “patriotic” saying: “… We must recognise all of us, as patriotic South Africans that public interest information can’t supersede or be above the right to life.”
Well, no one said it should be. Further, her predicate —the assumption of a causal link between Van der Merwe’s killing and his testimony — is presumptuous.
The patriotic thing to do would be for Kubayi’s department to fast-track the introduction of long overdue safeguards for South Africa’s whistle-blowers.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.