South Africa

Published May 2025

Relevant legislation:

Summary

South Africa’s whistleblowing legislation is considered amongst the strongest and most progressive in Africa. The complementary Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) and the Companies Act (CA) each meet international standards in several respects, but Significant gaps in the current framework leave whistleblowers exposed to retaliation for reporting corruption and its damaging effects on the country’s development goals. There is no clear, established procedure for making disclosures, and the system lacks proactive measures for physical protection, offers no incentives to whistleblowers, and fails to ensure that the information reaches agencies equipped to receive, investigate, and act on it effectively. One needs only to look to the Zondo Commission, headed by Deputy-Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, to see the extent to which corruption has penetrated the core of the South African State and has threatened the economic foundation the country depends to drive its development goals and eradicate the inequalities of the past apartheid segregationist state.

It is in this space that the role of whistleblowers has been magnified as they shed light on the fraud and corruption that has become the norm in transactions between state entities and well-connected officials, private companies, and individuals who gain unrestrained access to the highest echelons within the State administration through these transactions.

Before the passing of the PDA, whistleblowers had minimal protections and were subject to civil action based on confidentiality agreements they had previously entered into, and public and private employees were each subject to differing degrees of protection depending on the status of the organisation they worked for.

Today, confidentiality clauses in workers’ contracts are ineffective insofar as they conflict with the PDA, and protected disclosures can be made through a variety of channels. Two investigative bodies – the Public Protector and the Auditor-General – are authorised to receive disclosures. However, disclosures can only be made directly to the media under exceptional circumstances. Though legislation offers protection from retaliation in the workplace, external retribution for whistleblowing is alarmingly common. Whistleblowers risk defamation, financial ruin, death threats, and even assassination. An amendment to the PDA, the Protected Disclosures Act no. 5 of 2017, which provides greater protections for whistleblowers, was signed into law on 2 August 2017 by then-president Jacob Zuma. Zuma went on to become a central figure in the proceedings before the Zondo Commission of Enquiry.

Whistleblower Laws and Policies

Anyone considering blowing the whistle should first determine which of the two primary acts protecting whistleblowers applies to them. The PDA (26/2000) applied to public and private sector employees in specific relationships with an employer, but excluded groups such as independent contractors, agency workers, former and prospective employees, and volunteers. The amendment act, the PDA (5/2017), extends the protections afforded by the PDA to former employees, persons who were employed on temporary contracts, and persons who were deployed to posts in a different organisation by their respective employers. The amended Act also broadens the scope of a reportable disclosure to include a likely or actual breach of Chapter II of the Employment Equity Act or the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.

The original PDA precluded employees from reporting infractions of the law where there was a confidentiality clause or similar contractual obligation inserted into the employee’s contract of employment. While the inclusion of these types of provisions in contracts of employment is permitted, the 2017 PDA (5/2017) rendered the provisions void if their effect is to prevent employees from exercising their rights under the amended PDA. These new protections now cover the previously excluded classes of employees as well as the classes covered by the original PDA. The Companies Act (CA) supplements the PDA and extends protections to a broader range of employees of both profit and non-profit companies, as well as to shareholders and suppliers of goods and services to companies.

Although not specific, other South African statutes have provisions on whistleblowing, including, Employment Equity Act, the Promotion of Equity and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. However, the primary legislation governing the protection of whistleblowers is the PDA, aimed at employees and workers, including volunteers and independent contractors. It applies whether or not the information is confidential and extends to malpractice occurring overseas.

The PDA (5/2017) imposes an obligation on every employer, employee, and other class of worker to report any criminal or other irregular conduct occurring in their places of employment. There is a further obligation for employers to implement protective measures in the workplace to ensure that the interests of those who report misconduct are not compromised in any manner. Section 6(2)(a)(i) requires that all employers must authorise appropriate internal procedures for receiving and dealing with information about improprieties. A further requirement in Section 6(2)(a)(ii) is that employers must take reasonable steps to bring the internal (reporting) procedures to the attention of every employee and worker. This means that as the legislation changes, employers must proactively educate the workforce about the procedures to follow and the obligations imposed by law for reporting criminal or irregular conduct likely to cause harm.

Information, including opinions, on the “misconduct” of an employer or colleague is subject to reporting and eligible for protection under the PDA. Examples of such misconduct include criminal offences, failure to comply with legal obligations, miscarriage of justice, endangerment of health and safety, damage to the environment, and unfair discrimination. The CA covers a wider range of misconduct, including information on individuals acting in a manner that could pose a liability risk to the company.

Disclosures under the PDA can be made “in good faith” to a range of people, institutions, and organisations, including the employer, Cabinet members, Members of the Executive Council of a province, the Public Protector, and the Auditor-General. The PDA specifies that the appropriate recipient of information depends on the type of information being disclosed and the nature of the discloser’s employer. Those who fall under the ambit of the CA can make protected disclosures to a broader range of internal and external offices and structures, including the Companies Tribunal and the board of the company concerned.

Whistleblower protection does not hinge on the truthfulness or accuracy of the disclosure itself. Rather, the key consideration is whether the employee reasonably believed, in good faith, that the information disclosed was true. This principle was affirmed by the Labour Appeal Court in John v Afrox Oxygen Ltd [2018] 5 BLLR 476 (LAC), where the court held that requiring employees to prove the accuracy of their disclosures would impose an undue burden, exceeding what the Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) intends. The Act only requires that the employee held a sincere belief in the truth of the information. A similar stance was taken in Chowan v Associated Motor Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others 2018 (4) SA 145 (GJ), where the court ruled that the employee’s belief that she had been subjected to discrimination, regardless of whether it was factually accurate, combined with her good faith, was sufficient to warrant protection under the law.

Section 9(2) of the amended PDA (5/2017) includes a provision for employees to report misconduct outside of their designated reporting unit if there is a concern (a) that they may be subjected to an occupational detriment (demotion or stagnation) if they disclose to their employers; (b) that evidence of the complaint may be concealed or destroyed by the employer (this only applies in situations where there is no designated person/unit to receive the whistleblower complaint), (c) where the whistleblower previously lodged a complaint substantially similar in nature with the employer or a designated agency and, after a reasonable lapse of time, no action is forthcoming, or (d) where the misconduct is exceptionally serious. Only in extraordinary circumstances can disclosures be made to individuals or groups not listed in either Act, including the media.

The PDA protects whistleblowers from reprisal in the form of “occupational detriment,” such as dismissal, demotion, involuntary transfer, disciplinary action, failure to promote or disadvantageous alteration in a condition of employment, as well as from criminal or civil suits. Further, the Act provides explicitly that harassment, intimidation and refusal to provide an employment reference or provision of an adverse reference will constitute occupational detriments. Although the PDA prohibits “occupational detriment” against persons who make protected disclosures, the recently amended PDA includes section 9a, which excludes the institution of criminal or civil proceedings against a person for making a certain protected disclosure of information. This does not extend to circumstances where the employee or worker participated in the disclosed impropriety, nor does it provide for any penalties or consequences for retaliatory measures beyond the limited Labour Law remedies.

Employees covered by the CA are additionally immune from “civil, criminal, or administrative liability” resulting from a protected disclosure. Victimised whistleblowers are eligible to receive compensation of up to 24 months’ salary in the case of automatically unfair dismissal and 12 months’ salary in the case of other unfair labour practices. Employees under the CA may seek unspecified compensation for “damages suffered” from any person who deliberately causes or threatens to cause detriment because of a disclosure. The laws note no further penalties for individuals or organisations who retaliate against whistleblowers. Without changing the legal regime, removing the caps on compensation for unfair dismissal and unfair labour practices, and providing financial rewards and incentives for whistleblowers will deter potential retaliation.

Although there are dozens of structures mandated to receive and act on complaints of irregularities, the only investigative agencies to which protected disclosures can be made are the Public Protector and the Auditor-General. The PDA does not specify the time frame or how an investigation should take place.

It reinforces and strengthens the right to make disclosures to other specific regulatory bodies (Chapter 9 Institutions). These include the South African Human Rights Commission, the Commission for Gender Equality, and the Public Service Commission, among others. Disclosures to these bodies will be protected if the whistleblower makes the disclosure in good faith and the employee reasonably believes the Public Protector or Auditor-General would usually deal with this kind of problem. It is important to note that there is no requirement that the concern should first have been raised with the employer.

Apart from the PDA, South Africa has other laws that have provisions for the Protection of Whistleblowers. The Labour Relations Act has provisions that outlaw dismissals or unfair labour practices on account of protected disclosures. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act also has provisions that outlaw discrimination or prejudice related to disclosures and permit the breach of confidentiality in employment contracts so long as it was done for a legitimate and lawful purpose.

Whistleblowers who believe they have suffered undue retaliation in response to their workplace reporting can approach “any court having jurisdiction” to seek compensation. Case law has established that the High Court, the Labour Court, and the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA) are generally the most appropriate avenues to pursue restitution. The amended PDA (5/2017) includes provisions for compensation for actual damages suffered by a whistleblower as a result of reprisal attacks for disclosing misconduct.

Weaknesses and Needed Reforms

South Africa’s whistleblowing legislation falls short of international standards in terms of several key elements. These include the following:

There is no single standard for whistleblowing. Employees are entitled to different levels of protection for disclosures depending on the type of organisation they work for.
Only those in current formal relationships with an employer are eligible for protection, and disclosures must relate to misconduct by the employer or others connected to the employer. Citizen whistleblowers are not protected, and there are few protections available to those wishing to make anonymous disclosures.
The PDA does not provide for protected disclosures to be made anonymously, i.e. in such a way that no one, including the recipient of the disclosure, knows the identity of the whistleblower. Crucially, the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into State Capture Report highlights the importance of implementing a central electronic reporting system that protects anonymity, allows for clarifying questions, and guarantees confidentiality.
Disclosures may only be made to a select group of people and offices. Disclosures to the media fall under the umbrella of “general disclosures” and can only be made under exceptional circumstances.
As amended, the PDA (5/2017) does offer immunity from criminal or civil suits, but only if the disclosure is made in good faith and if the reporter is not complicit in the misconduct.
Prohibited retaliation is limited to “occupational detriment” in the PDA. Whistleblowers remain vulnerable to reprisal through defamation,
Victimised whistleblowers seeking justice must go through lengthy and expensive court proceedings, and they often do not have the financial means to sustain the costs of these cases. Thus, creating an independently administered fund to assist whistleblowers with legal costs is a practical way to support whistleblowers in realising their rights, which are rendered illusory if they cannot be enforced due to financial constraints.

Secrecy Laws

Although South Africa does not have specific legislation devoted to protecting trade secrets, the common law protects this information from acquisition, use, and publication by competitors and current or former employees. Similarly, although there are no specific bank secrecy laws on the books, the case law provides South Africa’s legal position. In a 2008 judgment, a judge found that “the relationship between a bank and its client must be confidential,” but that this privilege is “subject to being overridden by a greater public interest.”

The 1982 Protection of Information Act (POIA) restricts access to state information deemed to be a “security matter” and provides for hefty fines and lengthy prison sentences for the disclosure or publication of such information. This Act is cited in many refusals of requests for information under the Promotion of Access to Information Act.

A controversial replacement for the POIA, the Protection of State Information Bill (POSI Bill), was passed by the National Assembly, but returned for reconsideration by President Zuma in 2013. On 2 June 2020, President Cyril Ramaphosa returned the POSI Bill to Parliament for reconsideration. The POSI Bill has not been presented yet, as Parliament has not decided on the considerations raised by President Ramaphosa. Critics argue that the POSI Bill would restrict publication of sensitive documents and expose journalists to the possibility of “draconian” prison sentences, including up to 25 years for the publication of classified material. Many argue that it impedes the constitutional rights of citizens to access information. The public-interest defence is deficient, including criminal liability on the part of whistleblowers who may have documents that the head of an organ of state may wrongly classify to cover up corruption or hide illegalities or maladministration. This deficit will create an unjustifiable, chilling effect on the freedom of expression and limitations in this regard could be open to legal challenge on the basis that the limitations are arbitrary and irrational.

A further danger of the POSI Bill is that it does not include a provision for the defence of public interest, leaving the national security establishment virtually unaccountable to the legislature and its oversight function. It is only in an extremely high-profile case, like in the State Capture investigation, that there may be any accountability. This rare accountability was seen during a review panel’s investigation into the dealings of the State Security Agency (SSA) during the years 2015 to 2017. The investigation occurred following allegations that the SSA had become the personal agency of then-President Jacob Zuma and was used in his effort to entrench his power within the African National Congress (ANC) while simultaneously launching covert attacks against the growing army of critics advocating for his removal from power following the Nkandla scandal.

Testimony by former Minister Sydney Mufamadi revealed that the SSA had been complicit in establishing a news agency in 2015, Africa News Agency, dubbed “Project Wave,” whose intention was to counteract the local and international negative perceptions around South Africa, President Jacob Zuma, and the State Security Agency. The SSA was found to be complicit in forming an opposition trade union in the chrome belt in Rustenburg, Northwest province.

Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media

The South African Constitution’s Bill of Rights guarantees that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression,” including freedom of the press and other media and freedom to receive or impart information or ideas. These rights do not extend to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, and which constitutes incitement to cause harm.

South Africa recently extended these rights and protections even further with the 2024 Judicial Matters Amendment Act, which includes a provision repealing the common law crime of defamation. While this is a major step forward, the country still has several problematic laws in place when it comes to media and speech. For example, journalists worry about the Cybercrimes Act, which increases regulation of cybercrime investigations, lacks a public interest override for journalists and could thus potentially limit their ability to publish leaked information.

Another concern is that although South African journalists are required to protect their sources by their Code of Ethics and Conduct, they can be compelled to disclose their journalistic sources under The Criminal Procedure Act 57 of 1977 as amended. However, there is some positive progress thanks to an important legal precedent set in a 2013 court case. There, a judge declared that journalists should have the right to protect their sources, signalling that those who wish to protect the identity of their sources may receive the court’s support in doing so.

Whistleblower Cases

Whistleblowers face many risks when they come forward. In addition to potential civil and criminal persecution, whistleblowers risk loss of employment, defamation, and ostracisation and isolation within their communities. They also risk financial ruin, death threats, and even assassination.These risks came to the fore in one of the most highly publicised cases of whistleblowing in South Africa: the 2009 assassination of Moss Phakoe. Phakoe, an African National Congress councillor, was gunned down after submitting allegations of fraud to the Cooperative Governance Minister. Former Rustenburg mayor Matthew Wolmarans, who was implicated in the allegations, was found guilty of orchestrating the murder. Wolmarans was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but acquitted on appeal two years later when the High Court ruled that two key prosecution witnesses were not credible. Phakoe’s allegations have yielded no charges, and the murder remains unsolved.

More recently, whistleblower Babita Deokaran was assassinated outsider her home in 2021. As Chief Director: Financial Accounting at the Gauteng Department of Health, Deokaran had spent the previous decade cooperating with the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and the Hawks, serving as a critical witness who reported on fraud and abuses of public funds that came through her department. Shortly before her murder, Deokaran reported a hospital’s suspicious spending to the department CFO, who failed to take further steps following the report, despite promising to do so. Ten months after Deokaran’s assassination, the suspicious payments still had not been probed.

Another instance of violence against whistleblowers occurred in 2023 when Cloete Murray, a liquidator who was working on a high-profile corruption case with 176 million South African dollars in suspicious government contracts at stake, was killed along with his son. Murray had frequently warned of corruption while working on previous high-profile cases. A year following the murders, the police still had not identified who ordered the killings. It is clear that even with the existing whistleblower protections in place, individuals still face significant risks when disclosing corruption.

There are, however, examples of effective uses of whistleblowing protections in South Africa. When Deputy Director General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Mike Tshishonga alleged ministerial corruption in the appointment of liquidators, he was frustrated that no action followed his disclosures to the Director General, Public Protector, and Auditor General. He contacted the media, and his claims headlined national news. Tshishonga was forced to resign and charged with misconduct as a direct consequence of his whistleblowing. He brought the case to the Labour Court, which ruled that the impropriety raised in the disclosures was “exceptionally serious” and thus eligible to be reported to the media. His forced resignation was found to amount to unfair practice and he was awarded 12 months’ remuneration plus legal costs.

A quick survey of the impact of whistleblower legislation over the past decade shows that it is an essential tool in the fight to halt corruption and fraud in South Africa – especially at the institutional level. Currently, there are multiple cases pending on the court rolls awaiting commencement of trials against individuals charged with fraud and corruption. It is via disclosures by whistleblowers that these allegations were first exposed, investigated, and that those with merit have made it to the judicial system where they will be tested.

Currently pending before the courts is the matter of The State versus Jacob Zuma and Thales, wherein the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) alleges a corrupt relationship existed between former president Jacob Zuma and Thales, a military weapons manufacturing company. Both accused parties exhausted all avenues to have the courts rule the matter inadmissible for trial several years ago, but, despite the failure of these attempts to stop the trial, the trial is still pending.

There is also the matter of the State versus Ace Magashule, the former Secretary-General of the ruling African National Congress and former premier of the Free State Province. He too faces a host of fraud and corruption related charges. This case is still ongoing due to continuous trial delays. The latest of these pushed the trial to June, 2024, but there is no news on the status of the case following this last postponement.

In both of these cases, the prosecutions are the result of whistleblowers feeling secure in making disclosures and banking on the guarantees against reprisals to protect them as they expose the rot of corruption at the core of many of South Africa’s institutions.

However, the slow progress of the cases, combined with the continued risk of assassination faced by whistleblowers, shows that while South Africa does have a relatively robust framework for protecting whistleblowers –– particularly compared to many other African countries –– and while those protections may sometimes effectively support whistleblowers, there are still major risks associated with reporting misconduct in the country.

Media Rights And Freedoms

South Africa guarantees press freedom and has an established culture of investigative journalism. A free press is one of the foundations of a stable, vibrant, and transparent society that respects dissenting opinions and views. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are constitutionally guaranteed in South Africa, and there is a general acceptance and regard for these rights. The media and journalists have always been front and centre in advocating for a more open and progressive society, even in the darkest days of the segregationist apartheid regime. It was the media who kept the world informed about the abuse of power and the hardships endured by the Black majority population during this period. As a pivotal player in the road to socio-political change, the media has adapted its role to the pressures and new challenges brought on by the fight to eradicate the corruption and fraud that stymie South Africa’s development goals.

While harsh measures against the media were anticipated in response to their activism, they have not yet materialised. There further appears to be a realisation by the State that the current socio-political climate is receptive to a more open and transparent manner of interaction between the State and civil society. Additionally, in light of the revelations out of the State Capture inquiry, any attempt by state agencies to roll back the media’s hard-won freedoms will be resisted by the media establishment as well as by the public at large.

These freedoms are not taken for granted. Interferences with media, like the deliberate jamming of telecommunication networks to prevent journalists from using their mobile devices to report on the proceedings of the 2015 State of the Nation address to Parliament, have not faded from memory. They serve as a reminder that the media must stand ready to defend the people’s right to know, and, where there are voices which have a critical story which needs to be told, to stand ready to spread the news without fear or bias.

When it comes to press freedom, South Africa ranks 38th out of 180 countries surveyed in Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) 2024 World Press Freedom Index (having gone down in its ranking since 2023, when it was 25th). However, RSF warns that apartheid-era legislation and terrorism laws are used to limit reporting on government institutions, often playing the “national security” card to further obfuscate their nefarious dealings. This odious behaviour is not limited to agents of the State, but is also manifested by opposition parties and their leaders, like the EFF, who had effectively banned journalists from the Amabhungane media network from covering its events due to their critique of the party’s policies and the conduct of its leadership.

All is not doom and gloom, as is evident from the vibrancy with which the proceedings from the State Capture commission were critically reported on and dissected for the public to be better informed. Additionally, RSF reports that in 2021, the Constitutional Court ordered changes to the law on intercepting communications in order to safeguard the confidentiality of journalists’ phone conversations and the need to better protect their sources.

As said in the matter of Bosasa Operation (Pty) Ltd versus Adriaan Basson & M&G Media Limited in “If [newspapers] were compelled to disclose their source, they would soon be bereft of information which they ought to have. Their sources would dry up. Wrongdoing would not be disclosed. Charlatans would not be exposed. Unfairness would go unremedied. Misdeeds in the corridors of power-in companies or government departments-would never be known.”

It is therefore the role of the media to be the gatekeeper of truth and to record the progress of the fight against corruption.

Current Reform Efforts

In 2022, following the Zondo Commission and Recommendations, President Ramaphosa appointed the National Anti-Corruption Advisory Council (NACAC) as an advisory body to monitor South Africa’s implementation of its National Anti-Corruption Strategy. Since then, the NACAC whistleblowing work stream has been refining and improving South Africa’s whistleblower protection framework and the Protected Disclosures Act.

In tandem, the Department of Justice is also making efforts towards reforming whistleblower protections. In June 2023, it published The Discussion Document on Proposed Reforms for The Whistleblower Protection Regime in South Africa for public comment. The document proposed a number of legislative measures to support whistleblowing. The document’s recommendations include:

Criminalising threats against whistleblowers;
Shifting the burden of proof from whistleblowers to those attempting to deny whistleblower claims;
Conducting a review of the PDA that considers expanding the scope of whistleblower protection beyond “occupational detriment,” permitting disclosure bodies other than the Public Protector and the Auditor-General, and strengthening measures to ensure whistleblower security;
Creating a specialised court for whistleblowing cases.PPLAAF made a number of recommendations that were taken into consideration for the Discussion Document. These include:
The establishment of a Whistleblower Regulatory Authority that would act as a database for both private and public sector disclosures, independent from the reporting agencies already established in terms of the PDA;
Establishment of strict and obligatory timetables for processing and acting on protected disclosures as well as the creation of a positive duty to regularly inform whistleblowers of the status of his/her disclosure.

The document also made recommendations for reforms in line with Article 32 of the UN Convention against Corruption. These include creating:

Better measures for keeping a protected disclosure confidential when information may identify the discloser;
A reverse onus where any threat or conduct against a whistleblower is automatically presumed to be a result of the potential or actual disclosure the person made (unless the person who made the threat or engaged in the conduct can provide enough evidence that they had another reason for the threat or conduct)
An offence for when a person uses coercion, intimidation, threats, force, or any other coercive measure against another person with the aim of preventing or influencing that person against making the disclosure;
State protections for whistleblowers and their immediate families in situations where their lives or property are in danger;
An update to the definition of witness that includes whistleblower in the definition of witness in terms of the Witness Protection Act.

Following the closure of the comment period, the Department is said to be undertaking the incorporation of some of the recommendations that were made. At the time of publication, it is expected that the amended reforms will be made available for public comment in 2025, though no date for this has been provided yet.

Knowledge, support and action centers

Corruption Watch (CW)

Corruption Watch aims to ensure that the custodians of public resources act responsibly to advance the interests of the public, and to ensure that opportunities for entering into corrupt relationships are reduced. All forms of corruption at all levels of government or in the private sector can be reported to CW, and the organisation promises that they will “not share any details or identifying information with anyone else without permission”.

Address: Office G002, Ground floor, 6 Sturdee Avenue, Rosebank, Johannesburg
Tel: 011 242 3900
WhatsApp: 082 579 5220
Fax: 011 403 2392
Website: http://www.corruptionwatch.org.za
E-mail: info@corruptionwatch.org.za or submit information via their website at https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/report-corruption/

OUTA (Organization Undoing Tax Abuse)

OUTA investigates and exposes “the squandering, maladministration and corrupt use of taxes” in South Africa. Submissions can be made anonymously and OUTA claims that confidentiality is guaranteed through a secure, off-shore third party application.

Address: Unit 4, Boskruin Village Office Park, Cnr President Fouche & Hawken Road, Bromhoff
Tel: +27 (87) 170 0639
Website: http://www.outa.co.za/
E-mail: info@outa.co.za or submit information through their website at https://www.outa.co.za/whistleblowing

National Anti-Corruption Hotline

The National Anti-Corruption Hotline is a Division of the Public Service Commission designed to report fraud, corruption or maladministration in the public service. The hotline is open 24 hours a day and callers may use any of the 11 South African official languages.

Address: Cnr Hamilton & Ziervogel Streets, Arcadia, Pretoria
Tel: 0800 701 701
Fax: 0800 204 965
Post: P.O Box 582, Umhlanga Rocks, Kwazulu Natal, 4320
Website: http://www.psc.gov.za/anti_corruption/anti_corruption.asp
E-mail: publicservicecorruptionhotline.org.za or Integrity@publicservicecorruptionhotline.org.za

Public Protector South Africa

The Public Protector is an independent institution established in terms of section 181 of the Constitution, with a mandate to support and strengthen constitutional democracy. A supreme administrative oversight body, the Public Protector has the power to investigate, report on and remedy improper conduct in all state affairs. Anyone can complain to the Public Protector.

Address: Hillcrest Office Park 175 Lunnon Street 0083 Pretoria
Tel: +27 12 366 7108 / 7000
Fax: +27 12 362 3473
Website: www.pprotect.org
E-mail: PrinceC@pprotect.org

The Whistleblower House

The Whistleblower House commenced operations on 22 February 2022, with the objective of bridging the gap created by South Africa’s lack of an official comprehensive resource dedicated to providing support for whistleblowers. The Whistleblower House is committed to aiding those who witness or have knowledge of wrongdoing, empowering them to become whistleblowers in a safer manner.

Tel: +27 064 524 0241
Email: info@whistleblowerhouse.org or submit information through their website
Website: https://whistleblowerhouse.org/