IGL submission to comment on the Protected Disclosures Bill (2026)

The Protected Disclosures Bill is meant to repeal and replace the current Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000. The Preamble to the Bill states the intention to expand the protections offered to individuals who make disclosures on improper conduct (whistleblowers). The Preamble also mentions implementing the advice from former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo who led the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture.

While the Bill presents lofty intentions in the Preamble, it fails to provide effective protections to support whistleblowers who risk their jobs, safety, and lives to reveal improper conduct. With corruption being at the centre of state capture, the importance of whistleblowers cannot be overstated. Effective protection is crucial as several prominent whistleblowers have lost their lives in recent years. These include:

• Babita Deokaran, Chief Director: Financial Accounting officer for the Gauteng Department of Health, blew the whistle on tender fraud at Thembisa Hospital;

• Pamela Mabini, a human rights activist in Gqeberha and founder of the Maro Foundation, raised concerns about Nigerian televangelist Tim Omotoso;

• Marius van der Merwe (Witness D), a former police official who later owned a security company, testified in the Madlanga Commission:

• Cloete and Thomas Murray, a father and son liquidation team, were appointed by the state in the liquidation of Bosasa.

An effective replacement to the current Protected Disclosures Act should assist and welcome whistleblowers while ensuring their safety.

The IGL raised several concerns with the Bill:

1. The definition provided for discloser (whistleblower) is limited and vague.

2. The Bill gives enormous power to “authorised persons,” those who would receive protected disclosures, that could undermine whistleblowing.

3. The Bill does not explicitly provide an avenue for whistleblowing to the news media, despite this being particularly valuable in drawing attention to improper conduct and providing a degree of protection.

4. Section 3 of Bill creates a Central Data Centre that does not have a clear purpose. The Data Centre appears not only to be a waste of resources but is potentially dangerous because it is opaque in who manages it and who could access sensitive information on whistleblowers.

5. The Bill fails to follow the advice of former Chief Justice Zondo and the National Anti-Corruption Advisory Committee (NACAC) as it does not provide a framework for creating an institution that specialises in whistleblower protection.

6. The Bill should be reconceptualised, both in terms of language and structure, to ensure that it best assists whistleblowers.

Below you'll find the Cover Letter and Comments on the Protected Disclosures Bill (2026) IGL submitted to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.

Here is a link for access to the draft Protected Disclosures Bill (2026).