New High Court Ruling orders whistleblower be reinstated and receive over ten years of backpay
(Johannesburg, 13 August 2025) — Whistleblower Thuso Bloem was left in limbo for over a decade after uncovering alleged maladministration and corruption at Greater Taung Local Municipality under the Acting Municipal Manager, Mr Mpho Mofokeng. At the beginning of August, the High Court ruled in favour of the whistleblower, reaffirming the Public Protector’s remit to order remedial action for whistleblowers, the Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa (PPLAAF) said today.
In 2011, Bloem reported the misuse of public funds, irregular tender awards, and other issues to the Municipal Council. He was subsequently dismissed, submitting a complaint of victimisation on account of his whistleblowing to the Public Protector of South Africa, an independent state institution. Her 2018 report found the municipality violated Section 3 of the Protected Disclosures Act (PDA), South Africa’s primary legislation protecting whistleblowers. The Public Protector therefore ordered the whistleblower’s reinstatement, the issuing of backpay, and other relief measures. The municipality applied for the report to be taken on review and, with PPLAAF’s support, Bloem opposed this application.
“This Ruling buttresses whistleblowers in South Africa, affirming their rights to protection,” said Roshnee Narrandes, PPLAAF’s Southern Africa Director. “Municipalities, the coal-face of service delivery, form the majority of government departments in South Africa that have qualified audits. Extending protection beyond the labour process is necessary for a culture of accountability in a country that so desperately needs it.“
Another Whistleblower Left in Limbo
Bloem joined the municipality in 2003, working his way up to senior administrative clerk whilst simultaneously occupying the the role of shop steward for the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU). In 2011, on the same day as his complaint, Bloem was served a notice of suspension, purportedly on charges of misconduct. Following this, Bloem was unfairly charged and subsequently dismissed in 2012. He challenged his dismissal on the basis that it was an unlawful breach of contract, filing an application at the Labour Court which was dismissed for falling outside of the Court’s purview.
The whistleblower approached the Public Protector to file a complaint of occupational detriment against the municipality as a result of having made a protected disclosure. Her investigation into Bloem’s allegations of misconduct and victimisation not only vindicated his concerns, but also confirmed that he had indeed suffered financial and emotional prejudice as a result of his whistleblowing. This detriment amounts to a contravention of Section 3 of the PDA, allowing for remedies as outlined in Section 4 to be put in place. The Public Protector ordered the municipality to reinstate Bloem, pay renumeration owed, bolster whistleblowing channels in the municipality, and hold those identified as involved in the alleged wrongdoing to account.
The municipality, however, sought to have the remedial action of the Public Protector reviewed and set aside. According to the judgement, the matter between the Public Protector and the municipality “dragged on” with the Public Protector ultimately withdrawing from the case in October 2022. During this time, Bloem approached various state bodies to have his matter resolved, including Parliament. With a lack of resources due to his dismissal, Bloem therefore relied on the Public Protector to defend the report.
A Victorious Ruling
Enshrined in the Constitution, Chapter 9 institutions are independent bodies tasked as South Africa’s democracy watchdogs. As a Chapter 9 institution, the Public Protector is specifically mandated to support and strengthen constitutional democracy, with powers to investigate, report on, and remedy improper conduct in all state affairs. The broad scope of this mandate illustrates the depth of her investigative and remedial powers that address not just the harm done, but the very systems that allowed for such harm in the first place.
In 2016, the Constitutional Court ruled that the Public Protector’s remedial action is binding unless and until set aside on review. In opposition to the Public Protector’s report then, the municipality submitted a review application to the High Court. The municipality argued that Bloem’s complaint of being victimised for making a protected disclosure was an afterthought, raised only after his labour court application was dismissed. It also contested that the Public Protector “misdirected herself in entertaining Mr Bloem’s complaint as only the labour court had jurisdiction to do so,” and that she “erred in her remedial action as it was not in compliance with the Labour Relations Act.” With PPLAAF’s support, Bloem opposed the application for review.
On 1 August 2025, however, the High Court dismissed the municipality’s review application with costs. The Court found that the Public Protector’s exercise of her power and the remedial action she ordered were both rational and lawful. Considering Section 4(1)(b) of the PDA, which provides for the dispute to be resolved through “any other process allowed by any law,” Bloem was not bound to have his dispute resolved in accordance with labour legislation and processes set out therein — approaching the Public Protector as a whistleblower was an alternative process. Furthermore, as per the Constitution, the Public Protector is required to take “appropriate” remedial action, defined as “nothing less than effective, suitable, proper or fitting to redress or undo the prejudice, impropriety, unlawful enrichment or corruption in a particular case.“
Whistleblowing Beyond Labour
“This Ruling progresses access to justice for whistleblowers,” said Gemma-Maé Hartley, PPLAAF’s Southern Africa Project Officer. “It illustrates the very depth and breadth needed for nuanced whistleblower protection frameworks — not only legal safeguards, but systems that honour the public good that whistleblowers provide, too.“
Bloem’s decade-long journey is one of resilience and testament to the high personal costs of whistleblowing in South Africa. But his determination and the High Court’s ruling in his favour marks a turning point: that whistleblower protections extend beyond narrow labour processes and into broader legal and constitutional terrain. It further asserts the role of the Public Protector as a viable and binding avenue for whistleblowers seeking justice.
Since 2020, PPLAAF has consistently advocated for stronger whistleblower protection mechanisms in South Africa, and as the government works to reinforce the protection framework, this judgement sets a key precedent.
About PPLAAF
The Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa (PPLAAF) is a non-governmental organisation established in 2017 to protect whistleblowers and to advocate for and engage in strategic litigation on their behalf when their revelations concern the general interest of African citizens. Bloem’s case was supported by the PPLAAF-Southern Africa office.
Really – a breath of fresh air for the legal system