/ 17 January 2007

Public protector defends itself in whistleblower case

The Public Protector on Wednesday defended its decision not to investigate a matter that grew into South Africa’s first case in which a whistleblower received compensation for exposing corruption.

The case involved the former deputy director general in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mike Tshishonga, who had publicly disclosed corruption and nepotism within the liquidation industry.

Tshishonga also disclosed that the minister of justice at the time, Penuel Maduna, had insisted on having his friend, Enver Motala, appointed in lucrative cases.

Tshishonga had been sidelined over his refusal to appoint Motala, and subsequently made the public disclosures that led to his dismissal.

Labour Court Judge Daya Pillay had criticised the Public Protector, the Auditor General and Minister in the Presidency Essop Pahad, whom Tshishonga had called to resolve the impasse, for failing to probe the allegations, according to a report in the Sunday Times.

”All the indications were that none of these persons or bodies was willing to investigate the complaints,” the paper quoted the judge as saying.

Spokesperson Charles Phahlane said on Wednesday the Public Protector was not provided with enough information to investigate the matter.

Phahlane said Tshishonga’s testimony was not supported by the facts relating to the handling of his complaint by the office of the Public Protector.

”Mr Tshishonga and/or his attorneys failed to provide the Public Protector with sufficient information to substantiate his allegations of impropriety against the minister, which was requested on more than one occasion,” Phahlane said.

The Labour Court ordered the Justice Department to pay Tshishonga 12 months’ salary as well as his legal costs, according to the Sunday Times report. — Sapa