Transparency and accountability are essential elements of good governance. Power is tempting and the possibility of abuse by those in authority is always present. Hence, including checks and balances to give a voice to those who may feel silenced by power abuse is important. A mechanism that enables people to share information about unlawful or immoral conduct, without fear or favour, must be included as part of promoting good governance - and those who come forward must be protected.
This is known as whistleblowing - when someone brings evidence of unlawful or immoral conduct by individuals in authority. Organisations have a duty to put in place clear policies on how to handle whistleblowing and to establish well-defined platforms that trigger accountability when information is reported by a whistleblower.
In SA, we have seen poorly managed cases of whistleblowing - some of which have, unfortunately, ended with fatal consequences. One such chilling case is that of Babita Deokaran, who was assassinated outside her home in August 2021 after exposing corruption within the Gauteng department of health.
As chief director of financial accounting, she had evidence and a paper trail left by those who had devoured hospital funds. She came forward to her superiors with evidence and instead of being protected she was handed over to assassins to silence her - a devastating reminder of the cost of integrity.
Courage and consequence
Another case is that of Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, who inspired the nation by coming forward after being frustrated by internal reporting systems. He took the unprecedented step of holding a press conference and directly informing the public about the widespread corruption within the police service. This single act shocked and inspired the nation — and the publicity potentially saved his life if there had been plans to assassinate him. It also led to the establishment of the Madlanga Commission, now under way.
Such cases have made the public deeply sensitive to whistleblowing. Today when anyone claims that title - even without evidence - the public instinctively rallies behind them, often before verifying facts. This can present challenges for those responsible for managing risk in organisations, because false information can spread and cause serious reputational harm.
Whistleblowing is about bringing evidence of wrongdoing, in good faith. It is not about grandstanding and making allegations of wrongdoing to drive sinister agendas. These agendas often create unrealistic pressure for transparency and accountability.
Transparency is about being open regarding the rules and processes used to make decisions, while accountability is about being responsible to stakeholders for one’s words and actions. False claims disguised as whistleblowing break trust and often cause stakeholders to blur the lines — demanding details to which they are not entitled, which may amount to an attempt to co-govern with those given the authority to govern. This does not assist governance; it interferes with it.
Balancing openness and privacy
Just like transparency and accountability, confidentiality is an essential part of good governance. Some information should be kept confidential or shared only on a “need-to-know” basis — not out of secrecy, but out of respect for the right to privacy.
Privacy is the right of individuals and institutions to hold certain information about themselves in secret, free from the knowledge of others. Confidentiality is a prerequisite for privacy and good governance demands a balance between transparency and confidentiality.
Transparency does not mean that all kinds of information should be made available to the public. Rather, it is a condition for accountability — or account-giving. It is assumed that occupying a position of authority includes the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for the consequences of one’s decisions and actions.
Having rules and processes that guide decision-making (transparency) enables the ability to explain and account (accountability).
When transparency goes too far
Therefore, what is happening at the Madlanga Commission — where all sorts of sensitive information and private communications are being made public — is potentially problematic for effective governance of the country. The president is given the authority to make certain decisions and to account for them. If President Cyril Ramaphosa needed a process to assist him in evaluating the information brought forward by Mkhwanazi, that process did not need to blur the lines of confidentiality.
Those who speak truth to power should not have to pay with their lives – but neither should truth be sacrificed in the noise.
Similarly, the claims made by dismissed department of social development spokesperson Lumka Oliphant that she was targeted for releasing information about irregular appointments and wrongdoing by the minister may reflect internal politics rather than whistleblowing. These behaviours are problematic for effective governance, and organisations should plan for them as part of risk management.
There should be clear policies and procedures for managing employees who are political and drive agendas under the guise of whistleblowing. Whistleblowing policies and mechanisms should be designed to probe the intention of the whistleblower as much as they guarantee their protection.
Genuine whistleblowers acting in good faith should be protected, while toxic individuals driven by agendas should be managed effectively through employee relations processes and procedures. Those who speak truth to power should not have to pay with their lives – but neither should truth be sacrificed in the noise.
We can demand accountability without usurping power from authority.
Dr Sibongile Vilakazi is an academic, author, and organisational developer.
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.