At the workshops it was reported that fraud and corruption was rife in the South African public service, that employees were aware of it, and that in a lot of cases employees knew who was committing it.

When workshop participants were asked to give practical examples of white-collar crime in the public service they readily gave examples of fraud and corruption occurring in the workplace. When asked however, whether they would ‘blow the whistle’ on such criminal acts, baring one or two employees who had done so in the past to their detriment, nobody was prepared to. Identifying the crime was one thing, blowing the whistle another.

Employees at the workshops said that while they were aware in a number of cases of fraud and corruption taking place in the public service, that they were too scared to blow the whistle on it for fear of becoming victims of what the Act referred to as ‘occupational detriment’. Occupational detriment includes harassment, victimisation, dismissal and other forms of unfair labour practice. People’s fear of reporting the corruption extended beyond the workplace, to the protection of their property, their families and their own lives.

At the workshops employees were unanimous however in stating that they would welcome a mechanism to expose fraud and corruption in the public service, but that their main concern with such a mechanism was: firstly its confidentiality, and secondly, their protection. They said that if there was "political buy-in from the top", and that they could be assured of their confidentiality and their protection, that such a mechanism would be an effective tool in encouraging individuals to "speak out" against fraud and corruption in the public service.

Eight provincial workshops were run. The only province where a workshop was not held was Gauteng. The Gauteng Provincial Government may run a similar workshop shortly.

This report has taken the input received at the eight workshops and has set out in a practical manner the way in which an effective whistleblowing policy and mechanism may be established in the public service.

The key recommendations are:

1. It is suggested that the Director General in each of the provinces take responsibility for ensuring that the Whistleblowing Policy for the province is implemented.
2. That a whistleblowing infrastructure be budgeted for so as to ensure an effective whistleblowing mechanism.
3. Employee consultation and participation in the development of the Whistleblowing Policy is very important.
4. The attached Draft Whistleblowing Policy may be adopted, and adapted where necessary for this purpose.
5. The implementation of the policy should be well marketed through publicity and awareness campaigns, including posters and brochures, and the Political Heads and Senior Managers should be seen to be fully championing and endorsing the Policy.
6. Training on the Whistleblowing Policy and the Protected Disclosures Act should take place in all provinces, with all managers and with all staff. Contractors could also be invited to the training sessions.
7. Every employee should be given a copy of the Provincial Whistleblowing Policy.
8. A booklet should be made available in all official languages on the Whistleblowing Policy.
9. Provincial Whistleblowing Policies should be made available in the official languages of the respective province.
10. Training on the Whistleblowing Policy should be included in the induction of all new employees.
11. Implementation of the Whistleblowing Policy should be included in the Key Performance measurables of every senior manager in the province so that they constantly make employees aware of the Policy.
12. Hotlines to report fraud and corruption should be set up.

The recent King report on Corporate Governance has recommended compliance with legislation such as the Protected Disclosures Act and has also recommended the "establishment of easily accessible safe reporting, such as whistleblowing, channels."

The Protected Disclosures Act provides an immediate tool for public service Managers to put effective Whistleblowing Policies in place to encourage employees to report fraud and corruption in a safe way that will enable the elimination of such practices to thereby ensure improved Corporate Governance in the public service.

It is recommended that the Public Service Commission, whose role is to promote ethics in the public service, monitor the implementation of a whistleblowing infrastructure. In terms of a time frame for whistleblowing mechanisms to be in place in the different provinces, it is suggested that based on the findings in this report and the recommendations by the participants at the workshops that all provinces have a mechanism in place by the end of 2003. It is further recommended that the Director General of each province contact the Public Service Commission for assistance in this regard.

Research has shown that one of the key obstacles in the fight against corruption is the reluctance of individuals to "speak out" against corruption activities. Recognising this, the National Anti-Corruption Summit of 1999 passed amongst other things, a resolution calling for the implementation of a whistleblowing mechanism for the public service.

Accordingly, legislation in the form of the Protected Disclosures Act was passed by Parliament in February 2000. The Act offers an alternative to remaining silent, by making provision for procedures in terms of which employees in both the public and the private sector who disclose information of unlawful or corrupt conduct by their employers or fellow employees, are protected from "occupational detriment". This law is to encourage honest employees to raise their concerns and report wrongdoing within the workplace without fear. The Act encourages organisations to put structures in place to enable whistleblowing and in seeking to protect whistleblowers against any occupational detriment, prescribes the route to follow in the event of a disclosure. While providing organisations and employees with the necessary legal mechanisms to combat fraud, the Act also entrenches the obligation of employers to protect whistleblowers.

Following a tender process, the Directorate for Professional Ethics Research and Monitoring of the Office of the Public Service Commission, appointed the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) to develop recommendations on how to deal with whistleblowing in the public service. This objective was to be achieved through the holding of nine one-day consultative workshops with employees in the public service on the best possible way to implement a whistleblowing mechanism.

Training was to take place in each of the nine provinces so as to ‘popularise’ the Protected Disclosures Act with employees. Then in looking at the implications of the Act for the Public Service, employees would then be requested to give input on how best to implement a whistleblowing mechanism in their Province.

The workshops comprised two sections. The first involved delegates being trained on the Protected Disclosures Act, and the second involved delegates making recommendations on how to best implement a whistleblowing mechanism in the public service.

The training took the form of a highly interactive ‘learning session’ that looked at the "20 Most Frequently Asked Questions about the Protected Disclosures Act".

The second part of the workshop involved an equally interactive facilitation session, using the Participlan facilitation methodology.

It was agreed that once all the provincial workshops had been conducted, that a comprehensive final report, would be put together taking the recommendations from all the provinces into account, on how best to implement an effective whistleblowing mechanism in the public service.

The Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) is a section 21 not-for-profit legal advice centre that has specialised in training and litigation around the Protected Disclosures Act and the Promotion of Access to Information Act. The Centre was founded by the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA), the Black Sash Trust and the Public Law Department of the University of Cape Town.

ODAC Executive Chairperson, Richard Calland, and Policy Consultant, Lala Camerer, advised Parliament on the provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act, this in turn placed ODAC in an excellent position to assist in developing recommendations on how to deal with whistleblowing in the public service

The workshops were conducted by Mukelani Dimba and Bill Thomson of the Open Democracy Advice Centre. Both Messrs. Dimba and Thomson have backgrounds in training and labour law and both have had previous experience in the public sector.

The objective of the workshops was to develop recommendations on how best to implement the Protected Disclosures Act in the public service. The report emanating from the workshops was to encompass the collective input from the workshops on how best to implement an effective whistleblowing mechanism in the public service.

This was done by running eight one-day consultative workshops with employees in the public service, to look at best possible ways to implement a whistleblowing mechanism in the public service.

Training took place in eight provinces to ‘popularise’ the Protected Disclosures Act with employees. In looking at the implications of the Act for the public service, employees were then requested to give input on how best to implement a whistleblowing mechanism for the public service in their province. The only province where workshops were not held was Gauteng. The Gauteng Provincial Government may run similar workshops towards the end of 2002 or early in 2003.

At the workshops it was found that fraud and corruption was rife in the South African public service, that employees were aware of it, and that in a lot of cases employees knew who was committing it.

When workshop participants were asked to give practical examples of white-collar crime in the public service they readily gave examples of fraud and corruption occurring in the workplace. When asked however, whether they would ‘blow the whistle’ on such criminal acts, baring one or two employees who had done so in the past to their detriment, nobody was prepared to. Identifying the crime was one thing, blowing the whistle another.

Employees at the workshops said that while they were aware in a number of cases of fraud and corruption taking place in the public service, that they were too scared to blow the whistle on it for fear of becoming victims of what the Act referred to as ‘occupational detriment’. Occupational detriment includes harassment, victimisation, dismissal and other forms of unfair labour practice. People’s fear of reporting the corruption extended beyond the workplace, to the protection of their property, their families and their own lives.

At the workshops employees were unanimous however in stating that they would welcome a mechanism to expose fraud and corruption in the public service, but that their main concern with such a mechanism was: firstly its confidentiality, and secondly, their protection. They said that if there was "political buy-in from the top", and that they could be assured of their confidentiality and their protection, that such a mechanism would be an effective tool in encouraging individuals to "speak out" against fraud and corruption in the Public Service.

The fear expressed by workshop participants about blowing the whistle in an environment hostile to whistleblowing is borne out by the following recent South African cases where the senior officials have appeared to want to ‘shoot the messenger’ rather than the message.

• In a recent case in the Free State, the director of a prison had a video made by prisoners of corrupt activities being committed by prison warders. He then released the video to an SABC television station and the video was shown on national prime time TV. After its release the prison head was suspended and then transferred against his will to another section. Only after a commission of inquiry had been called to investigate the activities revealed in the video, was the prison director moved back to his previous position. A task team has subsequently been set up with ministerial backing to investigate corrupt activities at other prisons and to come up with recommendations on how to prevent such activities from occurring.
• In another case in Gauteng, eleven employees burned to death after having been locked up in a chemical factory with no escape routes. Earlier attempts to raise the alarm with their employer, and even written notice to the Department of Labour to blow the whistle on conditions that were inexcusable, if not illegal, brought no relief and ultimately resulted in their death. The Department of labour had sent an inexperienced person to investigate the matter, but the junior official had taken an ‘old map’ and had not found the factory. On returning to the Department of Labour offices the official reported to his superiors that he had been unable to find the factory and to investigate the matter. No subsequent follow up was done.
• In a case involving the fishing industry, the whistleblower, after months in a witness protection programme, was finally dismissed. This followed the conviction of his employers as well as inspectors from the Department of Marine and Coastal Management for contravening the Marine Living Resources Act, including the illegal fishing of rock lobster and hake worth R125-million
• Another case involved amateur video footage being screened on SABC of members of a police dog unit setting dogs on three Mozambican men in what was described as a training exercise. The whistleblower, a public service employee, after spending a year and a half in a witness protection programme, continued to receive death threats, and to fear for the lives of his family members.
• Finally a South African university academic, after blowing the whistle on his superior when he queried a R150 000 credit card bill only got his job back after taking his dismissal to the Commission for Conciliation and Arbitration. The commission ruled that the whistleblower had been unfairly dismissed.

• What the above cases have shown is that a safe legal environment in the form of the Protected Disclosures Act has to be matched by a safe working place environment in terms of the attitudes adopted by the employer. Responsible employers should welcome responsible whistleblowing, in recognition of the common "greater good" that is shared by both the employer and the employee, and often the wider public.

Workshops on the Protected Disclosures Act and Whistleblowing were conducted for the Provincial Governments in Mpumalanga, Limpopo Province, KwaZulu Natal, the Eastern, Northern and Western Cape, the Free State and the North West Province.

In each province between sixty and seventy senior public officials were invited to the workshops. In some provinces attendance was better than others, and in some provinces there was a greater number of senior officials than in others. In certain provinces very few senior officials attended.

What follows is a brief summary of the workshops by province, including their main findings and recommendations.

66 officials from the Mpumalanga Provincial Government attended the workshop. Most of the delegates were Directors and Heads of Departments from various departments.

Issues that were raised during the workshop that had implications for whistleblowing were:

Some dissatisfaction was expressed with the National Government’s Deployment policy, which made it possible for political appointees to occupy positions in provincial government structures even when such appointees were neither suitable nor qualified for such posts.

Some managers felt that they had been forced to "side-line" well-qualified professionals and to "fast-track" the careers of the political appointees. They stated that the current deployment policy had adversely affected operations and productivity in the provincial government departments, but they were concerned that they would be ostracised if they spoke out against the policy.

Some delegates also expressed the concern that one of the reasons why public officials did not report instances of corruption and raise such concerns with their managers was that sometimes the "culprit" was the same manager to whom they had to make the report. In essence "It was difficult to report the culprit to the culprit".

It was also stated that reporting was sometimes compromised by the fact that corruption and fraud was committed by syndicates who had elements inside the public service as well as outside, so it became difficult to report corruption because one did not know who was involved in the syndicate.

It was stated that in certain instances public officials were aware of fraud and corruption taking place between departments.

The question was raised as to whether a public official in one of the departments for example the Department of Health, would be protected in terms of the PDA if s/he blew the whistle on malpractice taking place in another department, e.g. the Department of Housing.

Section 8 of the Protected Disclosures Act has addressed this question by making provision for public service employees to make protected disclosures to the Public Protector and to the Auditor General.

In addition to the above, section 10 (1)(C) of the Act also makes provision for the Minister of Justice, after consultation with the Minister of Public Service & Administration, to pass a regulation "regarding any administrative and procedural matter necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Act."

During a facilitated exercise the workshop participants agreed that the following should be the core elements of an effective whistleblowing mechanism:

• Create an enabling environment for whistleblowers.

• Ensure confidentiality.
• Obtain commitment from political bosses.
• Establish an assistance plan for whistleblowing.
• Provide feedback to whistleblowers.

• Have awareness campaigns and programmes for promotion, publicity and marketing.
• Communicate process extensively.
• Have regular report backs and a free flow of information.
• Consultation.
• The policy must be developed through an intensive participatory process with all stakeholders, incl. Managers, staff, unions, suppliers, community etc.
• Get senior management support.
• Get commitment from drivers of the process.
• Education and Training.
• Hold training workshops on the PDA for all managers and employees.

• Structural arrangements.
• Policy to be in line with the PFMA and Treasury Regulations.
• Integration of all relevant legislation instruments related to clean governance.
• Establish a provincial task team.
• Specify risk areas.
• Develop a policy with guidelines.
• Set up procedures and mechanisms.
• Provide a budget for a well-capacitated and resourced structure.
• Establish a central office for raising concerns.
• Provide for intra and inter departmental reporting mechanisms.

• Monitoring and evaluation.
• Identify a structure that will monitor the process.
• Benchmark relative to best practice.
• Ongoing mentorship, sharing of ideas and comparative studies.
• Publicise success stories to serve as motivation (best practice).
• Establish a Hotline

53 officials from the Eastern-Cape Provincial Government attended the workshop. Most of the delegates were Directors and Senior Managers from various departments including Finance, Loss Control, Internal Audit and Labour Relations.

With the exception of one individual, no one had been prepared to blow the whistle in the workplace for fear of the consequences that might arise from doing so. Participants gave examples of corrupt behavior in the province that included the setting up of ‘ghost posts’ and ‘ghost schools’, and the wrongful allocation of contracts whereby employees were financially unjustly enriched.

During a facilitated exercise the workshop participants agreed that the following should be the core elements of an effective whistleblowing mechanism:

• Consultation and Buy-in.
• Have a buy-in campaign where the advantages of whistleblowing are given as well as the consequences of not blowing the whistle.
• Secure commitment from Politicians, management and unions.
• Policy formulation.
• Develop a policy, strategy and guidelines with regard to fraud and corruption and the PDA.
• Create a clear protection policy to alleviate victimisation.
• Formulate a provincial policy.
• Generate a common understanding and approach to deal with fraud and corruption.
• Provincial and departmental policies must have an effective and efficient implementation strategy on fraud, corruption and whistleblowing.
• Publicity and awareness.
• Create awareness around whistleblowing, through publicity and awareness campaigns.
• Communicate policy to all to secure buy-in.
• Promote policy and hotlines through billboards, screensavers, stickers and newsletters.
• Education and training.
• Train all public officials on anti-corruption initiatives, including the PDA and whistleblowing.
• Build capacity for prompt responses to whistleblowing
• Structural Arrangements.
• Have an independent reporting structure
• Dedicate staff to handle queries.
• Have a structure that indicates the communication/reporting lines
• Create an enabling environment.
• Develop a culture of accountability and ensure a positive perception of whistleblowers
• The mechanism should be transparent
• Protection outside work needs to be ensured
• Resources need to be made available
• Build into Performance Agreements Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) that; fraud will be reported, suspected misconduct will be acted upon and that the policy will be enforced.
• Monitoring and evaluation.
• Put tools, such as anti-fraud working committees in place to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the strategy.
• Implementation and operations.
• Be consistent in implementation.
• Ensure all tip-offs are investigated.
• Act timeously and decisively to conclude the matter
• Encourage service providers to implement the policy.
• Set up a help desk for confidentiality.
• Set up a 24-hour toll free hot line.
• Provide feedback to the whistleblower.
• Publicity, give report back on successful whistleblowing cases and create an awareness of fraud activities
• Define a centre of responsibility.
• Set up a central misconduct database.
• Solicit the assistance of an employee assistance programme (EAP) for workers to embrace whistleblowing.

56 officials from the Free State Provincial Government attended the workshop. Most of the delegates were Directors and Senior Managers from various departments.

Issues raised at the meeting:

The participants felt that public officials and employees in the public service should be trained in identifying indicators that might show that there is corruption or fraud taking place in their workplaces. The participants identified the following possible indicators:

• An unexplained change in the life-style of an employee or civil servant.
• People volunteering to work overtime even though there isn’t an apparent need to do so. (It was also mentioned that most cases of fraud and corruption occur an hour before the official time for the resumption of work or an hour later after the official time for stopping work when people go home.)
• Employees not taking leave they are entitled to.
• Lack of transparency and a veil of secrecy on official activities.
• Managers who surround themselves with "yes-men" and the creation of cabals.
• Personality changes: more stress, easily irritated and aggressive behavior.

Some employers get involved in illegal practices, e.g. Child labour, however the potential whistleblower might be reluctant to lift the lid on such illegal practices because someone in need might be benefiting from such practices. In the example of child labour, the child might be earning the money and might be using it to support his/her destitute family. As a result of the whistle being blown on the illegal practice, the person (in our example, the child) stops earning and the family is left worse off.

It was felt that the Act or its regulations should give clarity as to who pays the costs for counseling and for the whistleblower’s protection from victimisation. (It was suggested that the employer be responsible for these costs.)

There was general agreement that the current compensation available to a person who loses his/her job as a result of having blown the whistle is too little, given the sacrifices made and the risks suffered as a result.

During a facilitated exercise the workshop participants agreed that the following should be the core elements of an effective whistleblowing mechanism:

• Consultation and Buy-in.
• Obtain political support.
• Secure labour movement support.
• Get buy-in and commitment through participatory development of the policy.
• Policy formulation.
• Formulate a provincial policy
• Clearly define malpractice.
• Education and Training.
• Educate all stakeholders
• Conduct Management specific training
• Train shopstewards.
• Train trainers to conduct the training.
• Awareness.
• Create an awareness of the Protected Disclosures Act.
• Communicate the Whistleblowing Policy.
• Have visible marketing material with hotline number displayed.
• Publicise and promote using posters and videos, keyrings and pocket sized reference materials.
• Have a booklet available in all official languages on the whistleblowing mechanism.
• Structural Arrangements.
• Identify appropriate personnel to serve in the structure.
• Have an independent investigation unit.
• Equip the investigating team with the necessary resources
• Have inter-sectoral collaboration.
• Implementation and Operations.
• Adopt the Whistleblowing Policy into the vision and mission.
• Align strategy with effective and efficient internal control measures.
• Management should show commitment throughout the process of implementation.
• Budget to support the process.
• Link senior management performance agreements to effective implementation of the mechanism. (Compliance with PDA to be linked to KPI’s)
• Involve all stakeholders.
• Set up a PDA advice line.
• Ensure confidentiality.
• Specify a protection mechanism.
• Have a reporting office.
• Provide a toll free number to report corruption.
• Designate an independent authority to handle calls
• Set up an in-house reporting structure with guidelines.
• Monitor and evaluate the implementation of the mechanism.
• Have a reporting centre that monitors the structure.
• Have a feedback mechanism.
• Publicise results.

44 officials from the Northern-Cape Provincial Government attended the workshop. Most of the delegates were Directors and senior managers from various departments. Various trade union representatives also attended the workshop.

The Provincial Auditor-General, quoted the recent statistics on commercial crime, where it was stated that a recent study revealed that 76% of employees in the organisations sampled were aware of instances of commercial crime, corruption and fraud. According to the study there had been a 17% increase in commercial crime in organisations. The study also found that most employees who were aware of such crimes were not likely to speak out because there weren’t any whistleblowing mechanisms in place.

The Auditor General also reminded the participants that by remaining silent on instances of fraud, corruption and maladministration; public officials were guilty of contravening the public service code of conduct.

Issues that were raised during the workshop were:

The participants expressed a concern with the fact that currently the Act only applied to the employer-employee relationship. There was broad agreement that the scope of the Act should be extended to include members of the public and contractors, because these parties might also witness instances of corruption and want to speak out.

The Provincial Auditor-General proposed that employees should be encouraged to "blow the whistle timeously" in order to prevent further financial losses because, he said, it did not help to blow the whistle after the damage had been done.

There was further agreement that the onus for the protection of the whistleblower in any workplace should rest with the employer or the Head of Department.

During a facilitated exercise the participants agreed that the following should be the core elements of an effective whistleblowing mechanism:

• Consultation and Buy-in.
• Get Provincial Government buy-in.
• Obtain commitment from managers and political leaders.
• Consult with the public and the community.
• Create an environment conducive to whistleblowing.
• Build trust.
• Have awareness campaigns and programmes.
• Advertise the Act.
• Encourage people to blow the whistle.
• Inculcate whistleblowing into culture.
• Education and Training.
• Conduct information sessions on the Act and whistleblowing.
• Do training.
• Do capacity building.
• Do training roadshows on the PDA and whistleblowing.
• Focus training on service standards and ethics.
• Policy Formulation.
• Develop a uniform provincial Whistleblowing Policy.
• Include policy as part of the fraud prevention plan.
• Have a well-structured protection mechanism included in the policy.
• Establish mechanisms to ensure confidentiality.
• Structural arrangements
• Establish organisational mechanisms for whistleblowing.
• Designate high level co-ordinators for each department.
• Set up a toll free hotline for information.
• Set up relevant committees; task teams, support groups for whistleblowers.
• Implementation and Operations.
• Allocate financial resources.
• Adopt a zero-tolerance policy on corruption.
• Publicise successes.
• Keep a record of reported cases.
• Monitoring and evaluation.
• Monitor the implementation of the process.
• Assess the trend of complaints.
• The policy should cover and protect other people excluded by the Act, e.g. the unemployed and pensioners.
• Synergise the PDA with other legislation.

35 officials from the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Government attended the workshop. Most of the delegates were managers from various departments. No senior officials from the Province were present.

Issues that were raised during the workshop were:

The participants felt that public officials and employees in the public service should be trained in identifying indicators, which might show that there is corruption or fraud taking place in their workplaces. The participants identified the following possible indicators:

• An unexplained change in the life-style of an employee or civil servant
• People volunteering to work overtime even though there isn’t an apparent need to do so.
• People or employees not taking leave they are entitled to.
• Refusing to be part of job-rotation exercises.
• Independent contractors who insist on working only with particular government officials.

The participants requested clarity on who would be deemed to be the employer of an employee in the public service at a provincial level in terms of the PDA. (Section 10 regulations).

It was reported that certain public service employees were involved in a scheme – or scam – where certain records which contained the personal information of certain employees were illegally accessed and data, such as academic/educational qualifications and salary scales, was changed to give those employee higher remuneration packages.

It was also reported that certain officials would access PERSAL files and use other employees’ personal information. Such information is used to open new bank accounts to which supplementary salaries are deposited without the knowledge of the person whose information is being used.

During a facilitated exercise the participants agreed that the following should be the core elements of an effective whistleblowing mechanism:

• Consultation and Buy-in.
• Get buy-in from Labour, Cabinet and Mexco (Management Exco)
• Obtain commitment from senior management
• Include the promotion of the PDA in Performance Indicators
• Consult with employees
• Consult with the community/public
• Policy formulation.
• Develop a Provincial Whistleblowing Policy in terms of the PDA and regulations.
• Have a well-structured protection mechanism in the policy.
• Education and training.
• Educate all employers and employees about corruption and make staff aware of the PDA.
• Conduct in-house training.
• Awareness.
• Have a marketing/awareness/publicity campaign to educate the public on what constitutes fraud and corruption.
• Structural arrangements.
• Appoint an independent/objective/professional body to investigate all cases from various departments.
• Set up an alternative whistleblowing structure within the organisation.
• Put in place an internal reporting structure.
• Identify a departmental co-ordinator for quick responses.
• Have a link between the internal mechanism and the independent one.
• Implementation and Operations.
• Establish a body that will be responsible for implementation.
• Include as part of the risk management process.
• Introduce a hotline with an easily remembered toll-free number for reporting malpractice.
• Budget for the implementation of such a mechanism.
• Identify and eliminate barriers in the organisation for the effective implementation of such a mechanism.
• Have a procedure for reporting misconduct.
• Ensure that an investigative capacity is built into the system.
• Ensure reasonable time frames between reporting and responses.
• Ensure consistency in sanctions.
• Keep a record of reported cases and success rates.
• Provide feedback on finalised cases and publicise these in the media to encourage whistleblowing.

26 officials from the Limpopo Government attended the workshop. There were very few senior officials and the remainder of delegates comprised managers and senior officers from the various departments.

Issues that were raised during the workshop were:

The delegates stated the following as the reasons why employees have been reluctant in blowing the whistle on malpractice:

• Fear.
• People don’t blow the whistle because there is a tendency to wait until the SAPS has offered certain rewards for information leading to prosecution of offenders.
• Lack of awareness about the Act.
• Even though employees do report cases of corruption and malpractice sometimes nothing gets done after the report has been made.
• Employees do not make reports because they fear that they might not have sufficient evidence to support their report.
• The PDA is too narrowly confined on the employment relationship.

• Linking the PDA to other labour laws

• Highlighting Offenders

During a facilitated exercise the delegates agreed that the following should be the core elements of an effective whistleblowing mechanism:

• Create a conducive environment to encourage the reporting of wrongdoing.
• Ensure protection of whistleblowers against victimisation.
• Ensure confidentiality and protection of whistleblowers.
• Have an awareness campaign in the province to promote the Whistleblowing Policy.
• Develop slogans.
• Have a visual presentation.
• Print and distribute booklets to employees and the community.
• Education and Training.
• Hold workshops to train management and staff/employees to understand the provisions of the Act.
• Consultation.
• Consult all stakeholders, management, staff and unions to get buy-in from all.
• Get Political buy-in.
• Policy formulation.
• A clear statement that malpractice will not be tolerated.
• A policy statement by the Premier.
• Policy to have approval and support.
• The Whistleblowing Policy to:

• Have a clear whistleblowing procedure giving clarity on Who, what, how and when.
• Timeframes with various steps and stipulated timeframes for response.
• Benefits of policy to be stated.

• Structural arrangements.
• Designate a manager to be responsible for the implementation of the policy.
• Establish a whistleblowing committee.
• Involve representatives from all departments.
• Put structures in place to deal with whistleblowing issues.
• Implementation.
• Be champions of the PDA.
• Publicise the Province’s commitment to whistleblowing through posters.
• Establish an advice centre.
• Establish a toll-free hotline.
• Clarify lines of communication.
• Ensure policy in line with employment contracts.
• Allocate resources.
• Have suggestion boxes.
• Ensure perpetrators are brought to book.
• Provide feedback from investigations.
• Feedback.
• Provide feedback to the whistleblower.
• Show appreciation and recognition to whistleblowers as encouragement.
• Adhere to timeframes for responding.

• Monitoring and evaluation.
• Set up review mechanisms.
• Publicise success stories.

67 officials from the Western-Cape Provincial Government attended the workshop. The delegates were mainly from middle and junior-management positions from the various departments.

Issues that were raised at the workshop:

Individuals cited examples of fraud and corruption that was occurring in the various departments. They were even aware of certain individuals who were committing such acts, but people were generally too scared to blow the whistle on corruption and to expose such acts for fear of the repercussions.

During a facilitated exercise the participants agreed that the following should be the core elements of an effective whistleblowing mechanism:

• There needs to be the political will and the example set by political leaders and senior managers that whistleblowing is encouraged and that it will be protected in terms of the Act.
• Consultation.
• Consult with staff and labour.
• Run a series of workshops with the workforce.
• Awareness and Training.
• Publicise whistleblowing.
• Have an awareness campaign.
• Hold workshops for all staff on the PDA and whistleblowing.
• Hold a series of workshops for people at a management level.
• Confidentiality.
• Ensure/guarantee confidentiality.
• Protection of Whistleblower.
• Be able to offer FULL protection to whistleblower.
• Have internal legal advisors for whistleblower.
• Have a whistleblowing fund.
• Protect whistleblower from disciplinary action that might result from the whistleblowing. (Occupational detriment).
• Policy development.
• Develop and implement a policy on whistleblowing.
• Have a 24-hour Toll-free hotline for whistleblowers.
• Have whistleblowing provisions built into performance agreements.
• Ensure that wrongdoers are effectively punished.
• Provide counseling for whistleblowers.
• Give positive recognition to whistleblowers (‘award’ whistleblower).
• Independently Monitor and Evaluate the implementation of the mechanism.

52 officials from the North West Provincial Government attended the workshop. In addition to the State Accountant, the Head of Provincial Internal Audit, two Directors, and eight deputy directors, the delegates were mainly from middle and junior-management positions from the various departments.

Issues that were raised during the workshop:

In response to the question, " do you think it is right to blow the whistle on fraud and corruption in the workplace?" the majority response was that it was right. In response to a further question as to how many of the delegates would actually blow the whistle on the corruption and fraud in the workplace, no one was prepared to do so, even thought they were aware of it.

Reasons given for not blowing the whistle were the following:

• Fear of victimisation
• No one wanted to listen
• Nobody wanted to know
• People not sure of the facts
• There was no policy on whistleblowing
• People didn’t know where to go
• Lack of protection for whistleblowers
• You’d be reporting to people who themselves were corrupt
• The fraud and corruption would be covered up
• "The whole system was corrupt, and it would be tracked back to the whistleblower."
• A question was asked by a delegate, as to how a prevailing poor work ethic could be turned around.

The delegates gave the following examples of behavior that could indicate corrupt practices:

• People not taking leave
• Convenient leave taking (e.g. when SCORPIONS visit)
• People continually working late
• Frequent visits by "certain outsiders"
• Offices always locked
• Use of MEC stamps
• Work centralisation
• Lack of delegation of work/responsibility
• Presents from suppliers/customers
• People getting a raise for no reason
• The use of government assets for personal gain
• An example was given of a senior official who on being charged with having taken R70 000, was merely required to return it, while a junior member of staff had been dismissed for taking R42 under similar circumstances.

Another issue that was raised that didn’t relate directly to whistleblowing itself but which if implemented properly would improve corporate governance, was the issue of wrongful and unfair appointment practices. It was stated that applicants qualifications should be thoroughly audited before applicants are appointed.,It was said that unqualified and incompetent political appointments should stop so as to prevent later situations arising where it became necessary to blow the whistle on such people, or worse still, to not blow the whistle on them for fear of suffering occupational detriment.

During a facilitated exercise the participants agreed that the following should be the core elements of an effective whistleblowing mechanism:

• Senior people needed to be involved. They needed to be trained on the PDA and whistleblowing; they needed to champion it, drive it, model it, encourage whistleblowing on fraud and corruption, ensure confidentiality, and ensure the protection of whistleblowers.
• Political will and commitment.
• Provincial politicians should publicly commit themselves to implement the Act
• MEC’s should report in their annual reports on the progress made in their departments on the implementation of the Act
• Performance contracts to include KPI’s on whistleblowing mechanism implementation.
• Include the implementation of the policy in the KPI’s of top management
• Include as part of the employment contract, letters of appointment, job descriptions and pa’s
• Whistleblowing should form part of performance agreements
• Enforce top management participation and support
• Publicity.
• Create awareness through campaigns
• Have whistleblowing focus months
• Make PDA available in pamphlet form and display in workplaces
• Publicise handled cases
• Report publicly on the successful outcomes of whistleblowing cases
• Office of the Premier should liase with other departments communication units in publicising the Act
• Appoint a high-ranking officer to oversee the whistleblowing mechanism.
• Provincial Whistleblowing Policy.
• Have a provincial Whistleblowing Policy
• Bring existing policy in line with the PDA
• Have an implementation guide to the policy
• Speed up and finalise existing corruption cases
• Anti-corruption hotline.
• Have a help desk to assist employees
• Have a provincial toll free hot-line that is managed independently and properly
• Create an organisational environment where there is trust on an employer-employee level.
• Training and Awareness.
• Conduct an awareness campaign throughout the workplace
• Conduct training workshops at all levels on the Act
• Conduct targeted training for managers to be able to deal with whistleblowing
• Have continuous training on the PDA and whistleblowing
• Train senior managers, political heads and politicians (change the mindset of senior managers)
• Monitoring and evaluation.
• Put a monitoring mechanism in place
• Have quarterly and annual whistleblowing reports
• Have an independent overseeing of the whistleblowing committee and the NW legislature
• Have inter-department peer monitoring
• Ensure logistical support in place for whistleblowing mechanism
• Have a feedback mechanism for the whistleblower
• Consider incentives/rewards for whistleblowers
• Whistleblowing can ensure good governance

The costs incurred by white collar crime have ranged from the loss of jobs and livelihoods, to the loss of millions of Rands in compensation, fines and insurance, the loss of public and investor confidence, the loss of lives and increased regulation.

Establishing good corporate governance practices can be achieved though the setting up of whistleblowing mechanisms and structures supported by a Whistleblowing Policy as envisaged and encouraged by the law itself.

The recent King report on Corporate Governance has recommended compliance with legislation such as the Protected Disclosures Act and has also recommended the "establishment of easily accessible safe reporting, such as whistleblowing, channels." The report speaks strongly of the need to change organisational cultures to comply with good corporate governance.

The Protected Disclosures Act provides for a safe legal environment, but this has to be matched by a safe working place environment in terms of the attitudes adopted by the employer.

It is significant in this regard therefore that the Public Service Commission saw fit to embark on a countrywide project to train its officials on the whistleblower law and to consult them on the establishment of ‘best practice’ whistleblowing mechanisms to combat corruption in the public service.

What has emerged from the eight workshops is that employees are aware of fraud and corruption taking place in the public service, and that they would welcome a mechanism to expose it. They need to know however, where and how to ‘blow the whistle’, and to be confident that they would be taken seriously, treated in confidence and protected. The establishment of a mechanism to encourage whistleblowing was seen to be an effective tool in encouraging individuals to do this. Such structures would then hopefully lead to corruption being reported internally and then dealt with. If the matter is not dealt with internally, the only option that remains to the whistleblower is to follow the external route.

The Key recommendations that came out of the workshops were:

• The need for the implementation of a whistleblowing mechanism in the public service.
• The need to establish what constitutes fraud, corruption and malpractice in the public Service.
• The need for a policy and procedure on whistleblowing in the public service.
• That there be the demonstrable political will and buy-in of the Politicians and the Senior Managers in the Provinces that they are committed to the elimination of corruption in the public service. That they should be seen to be "driving and championing" whistleblowing as a tool for improved and good corporate governance.
• That proactively and demonstrably managing the whistleblowing process be included in managers performance contracts and measured in terms of their Key Performance Areas.
• That a whistleblowing infrastructure be budgeted for so as to ensure an effective whistleblowing mechanism. The provision of such a budget would be a good indicator of political will of the respective provinces in ensuring good corporate governance.
• That potential whistleblowers should be assured of the confidentiality of the process, in the policy, through awareness campaigns and demonstrably by Political Leaders and Senior Managers.
• That the confidentiality of the whistleblower be maintained.
• That the whistleblower be assured of their protection including what the Act defines as occupational detriment.
• Departments are encouraged to look at measures that they could put in place that go beyond the protection provided for by the Act.
• The need for promotion and awareness of the Act and the Whistleblowing Policy
• The need for the training and awareness of employers and employees in the public service around the Protected Disclosures Act.
• The need for the participative development of a Whistleblowing Policy and procedure for the public service.
• The need for training and awareness of employers and employees in the public service on the Whistleblowing Policy.
• The need for a booklet to be made available in all official languages on the Whistleblowing Policy for distribution to all employees.
• The need for the establishment of whistleblowing hotlines in both provincial and national departments.

In light of the above duty on public service employees to report fraud and corruption, the introduction and implementation of a good Whistleblowing Policy and effective mechanism becomes even more critical. It may well in fact be argued that there could be an onus on public service managers to provide such a mechanism, given the onerousness of the above section on public service employees.

A draft Whistleblowing Policy has been attached to this report. The policy message should be that "It is safe to break the silence". The Whistleblowing Policy should also clearly indicate that political leaders and senior management positively encourage public service employees to come forward and report instances of fraud and corruption. It should be emphasised that protective legislation in the form of the Protected Disclosures Act is in place, and that employee confidentiality will be maintained.

The Protected Disclosures Act provides an immediate tool for public service Managers to put effective Whistleblowing Policies in place to encourage employees to report fraud and corruption in a safe way that will enable the elimination of such practices to thereby ensure improved Corporate Governance in the public service.

The Act has its deficiencies however, and there are two main areas. The first is that it only offers protection to employees and it excludes members of the general public, including, pensioners and temporary and casual workers. The second is that where an employee has been dismissed and has qualified for protection in terms of the Act, the compensation is limited to 24 months salary. This is a small amount when considering the ‘other costs’ to the employee of whistleblowing, which can often include protracted and expensive legal proceedings, negative perceptions of the whistleblower by the community and potential employers, not to mention the cost to personal and family life.

It is in light of the opportunities that the Protected Disclosures Act offers together with its current limitations, that Public Service Managers are encouraged in terms of the King report recommendations to comply with the Act and to establish easily accessible safe reporting, whistleblowing, channels to ensure good corporate governance.

1. It is suggested that the Director General in each of the provinces take responsibility for ensuring that the Whistleblowing Policy for the province is implemented.
2. That a whistleblowing infrastructure be budgeted for so as to ensure an effective whistleblowing mechanism.
3. Employee consultation and participation in the development of the Whistleblowing Policy is very important.
4. The attached Draft Whistleblowing Policy may be adopted, and adapted where necessary for this purpose.
5. The implementation of the policy should be well marketed through publicity and awareness campaigns, including posters and brochures, and the Political Heads and Senior Managers should be seen to be fully championing and endorsing the Policy.
6. Training on the Whistleblowing Policy and the Protected Disclosures Act should take place in all provinces, with all managers and with all staff. Contractors could also be invited to the training sessions.
7. Every employee should be given a copy of the Provincial Whistleblowing Policy.
8. A booklet should be made available in all official languages on the whistleblowing policy.
9. Provincial Whistleblowing Policies should be made available in the official languages of the respective province.
10. Training on the Whistleblowing Policy should be included in the induction of all new employees.
11. Implementation of the Whistleblowing Policy should be included in the Key Performance measurables of every senior manager in the province so that they constantly make employees aware of the Policy.
12. Hotlines to report fraud and corruption should be set up.

A personal note from the Director General (XXX Department) (signed by all A/Dir and upward, conveying management commitment) making it clear that XXX Department is committed to the fight against fraud and corruption in XXX Department whether the perpetrators are internal or external. That the Whistleblowing Policy and procedure is part of XXX Departments commitment to working towards a culture of openness and transparency. It could be added that confidentiality will be maintained, and that nobody will be penalised for disclosing in good faith, information that might be in XXX Departments interest.

The purpose of this policy is to provide a means by which staff are able to raise concerns with the appropriate line management, or specific appointed persons in XXX Department, where they have reasonable grounds for believing that there is fraud and corruption within XXX Department.

The Protected Disclosures Act, Act 26 of 2000, which became effective in February 2001, provides protection to employees for disclosures made without malice and in good faith, in defined circumstances.

In terms of the Protected Disclosures Act employees can blow the whistle on fraud and corruption in the working environment without the fear of suffering an occupational detriment as defined by the Act. XXX management encourages staff to raise matters of concern responsibly through the procedures laid down in this policy document.

The policy is designed to deal with concerns raised in relation issues relating to fraud, corruption, misconduct and malpractice within XXX Department. The policy will not apply to personal grievances, which will be dealt with under existing procedures on grievance, discipline and misconduct. Details of these procedures are obtainable from the Human Resources Department.

The policy covers all genuine concerns raised including:

• Financial misconduct
• Health and safety risks
• Environmental damage
• Unfair discrimination
• Corruption and misconduct
• Attempts to suppress or conceal any information relating to any of the above

If in the course of investigation any concern raised in relation to the above matters appears to the investigator to relate more appropriately to grievance or discipline, those procedures will be evoked.

Any member of staff who has a reasonable belief that there is corruption or misconduct relating to any of the protected matters specified above may raise a concern under the procedure detailed.

Concerns must be raised without malice, in good faith and not for personal gain and the individual must reasonably believe that the information disclosed, and any allegations contained in it, are substantially true.

The issues raised may relate to a manager, another member of staff, a group of staff, the individuals own section or a different section/division of XXX Department. The perpetrator can be an outsider, an employee, a manager, a customer or an ex-employee. You may even be aware of a system or procedure in use, which may cause XXX to transgress legal obligations.

XXX commits itself to encouraging a culture that promotes openness. This will be done by:

• Involving employees, listening to their concerns and encouraging the appropriate use of this policy/process on whistleblowing promoted by Senior Management. This policy will be issued to all existing employees and to each new employee
• Educating/training/informing/explaining to employees what constitutes fraud, corruption and malpractice and its effect on XXX. Promoting awareness of standards of appropriate and accepted employee conduct and establishing a common understanding of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior.
• Encouraging unions to endorse and support this approach
• Having a policy to combat fraud
• Annual reporting to XXX on the number of fraud/corruption matters reported and the outcome

Management is committed to this policy. XXX will ensure that any member of staff who makes a disclosure in the above mentioned circumstances will not be penalised or suffer any occupational detriment for doing so.

Occupational detriment as defined by the Act includes being dismissed, suspended, demoted, transferred against your will, harassed or intimidated, refused a reference or being provided with an adverse reference, as a result of your disclosure.

If you raise a concern in good faith in terms of this policy, you will not be at risk of losing your job or suffering any form of retribution as a result.

This assurance is not extended to employees who maliciously raise matters they know to be untrue. A member of staff who does not act in good faith or who makes an allegation without having reasonable grounds for believing it to be substantially true, or who makes it maliciously or vexatiously, may be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

In view of the protection offered to a member of staff raising a bona fide concern, it is preferable that the individual puts his/her name to the disclosure. XXX will not tolerate the harassment or victimisation of anyone raising a genuine concern.

However, we recognise that you may nonetheless wish to raise a concern in confidence under this policy. If you ask us to protect your identity by keeping your confidence, we will not disclose it without your consent. However, we do expect the same confidentiality regarding the matter from you.

If the situation arises where we are not able to resolve the concern without revealing your identity (for example where your evidence is needed in court), we will discuss with you whether and how we can proceed.

Accordingly, while we will consider anonymous reports, this policy is not appropriate for concerns raised anonymously.

Once you have told us of your concern, we will look into it to assess initially what action should be taken. This may involve an internal inquiry or a more formal investigation.

The issue you raise will be acknowledged within 7 working days. If it is requested, an indication of how the organisation proposes to deal with the matter and a likely time scale could be provided. If the decision is made not to investigate the matter reasons will be given. We will tell you who would be handling the matter, how you can contact him / her and whether your further assistance may or will be needed.

When you raise a concern, you may be asked how you think the matter might best be resolved. If you do have any personal interest in the matter, we do ask that you tell us at the outset. If your concern falls more properly within the Grievance Procedure we will tell you.

While the purpose of this policy is to enable us to investigate possible malpractice and take appropriate steps to deal with it, we will give you as much feedback as we properly can. If requested, we will confirm our response to you in writing. Please note, however, that we may not be able to tell you the precise action we take where this could infringe a duty of confidence owed by us to someone else.

If you have a concern about malpractice, we hope you will feel able to raise it first with your manager/ supervisor. This may be done verbally or in writing.

If you feel unable to raise the matter with your manager, for whatever reason, please raise the matter either with:

(For example): Human Resources: Assistant Director

Contact details

OR

(For example): Internal Audit: Assistant Director

Contact details

Please say if you wish to raise the matter in confidence so that they can make appropriate arrangements.

If these channels have been followed and you still have concerns, or if you feel that the matter is so serious that you cannot discuss it with any of the above, please contact:

(For example): Director General

Contact details

Should you have exhausted these internal mechanisms or where you have substantial reason to believe that there would be a cover-up or that evidence will be destroyed or that the matter might not he handled properly, you may raise the matter in good faith with a member of the Cabinet or Executive Council in this province:

Name:

Contact details

If you are unsure whether to use this procedure or you want independent advice at any stage, you may contact your personal legal adviser, or your labour organisation, or the independent legal advice centre ODAC on it’s toll free helpline on 0800 525 352. Their legally trained staff can give you free confidential advice at any stage about how to raise a concern about serious malpractice at work.

While we hope this policy gives you the reassurance you need to raise such matters internally, we recognise that there may be circumstances where you can properly report matters to outside bodies, such as regulators or the police. ODAC will be able to advise you on such an option and on the circumstances in which you may be able to contact an outside body safely.

While we hope this policy gives you the reassurance you need to raise such matters internally, we would rather you raised a matter with the appropriate regulator than not at all. Provided you are acting in good faith, you can also contact:

The Public Protector

(Contact details)

The Auditor-General

(Contact details)

If you are unhappy with our response, remember you can go to the other levels and bodies detailed in this policy. While we cannot guarantee that we will respond to all matters in the way that you might wish, we commit ourselves to handle the matter fairly and properly.

By using this policy, you will help us to achieve this.