The minister says witness declined protection but whistleblowers claim they are the ones asking for protection, only to be denied or ignored.
Both witnesses who have and those who are due to testify in the Madlanga commission have criticised Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Mmamoloko Kubayi’s claims that the commission has done everything in its power to protect whistleblowers.
Government’s protection of witnesses has been criticised in the wake of Marius van der Merwe’s death on Friday evening.
The private security firm owner was shot outside his Brakpan, Gauteng, home. He had previously testified at the commission as Witness D. There, he implicated suspended EMPD top cop Julius Mkhwanazi in criminal activity.
Responding to the backlash, Kubayi said she was pleased with the current witness protection programme and the commission’s efforts to protect witnesses.
She claimed that Van der Merwe had been offered protection by the commission but had declined it “because he didn’t think he needed it as he had his own security company”.
“In the case of Witness D, as the minister has indicated, witness protection was offered, and it was refused. Uhm, or let’s put it more kindly, it was declined, for the reasons given,” added her deputy, Andries Nel.
However, those close to him have disputed this.
They told The Citizen that Van der Merwe would have taken the protection, if offered, as he feared for his life.
It is understood that as threats against him grew, and after surviving a previous attempt on his life, he was willing to go public in an effort to pressure authorities to protect whistle-blowers and reduce the target he had on his back.
Asked by City Press about Kubayi’s claims, Van der Merwe’s wife reportedly said she was not aware of any refusal. This was confirmed to The Citizen by someone close to the family.
Instead, witnesses claim they were the ones asking for protection, only to be denied or ignored.
ALSO READ: ‘Get down!’: Inside slain Madlanga commission witness Marius van der Merwe’s last moments
Alleged intimidation
Some alleged that law enforcement used intimidation tactics to secure testimony at the commission, with one claiming they were told that if they did not provide evidence, they could be implicated and identified.
“We were offered zero protection and, just like with Vlam [Van der Merwe], we are starting to feel that we are next, whichever way it goes,” the witness said.
Another said that they do not leave their home without private protection.
“We are going through hell, but nothing has happened. We are not being protected. It was never on the table. Just threats.”
Commission says it will ramp up security
The Citizen requested comment from the commission in response to these witnesses’ fears. It responded that it was working with the police, the military, the justice department, and state security to review the protection provided.
“A meeting, held in Pretoria at the NatJoints Operations Centre, agreed to enhance the commission’s security operational plan over the next two days.
“While extensive measures have been put in place to secure witnesses and officials since the start of the commission, the meeting identified a need to heighten these measures by roping in the NatJoints and all other relevant roleplayers.”
NatJoints is among the most senior security cross-department organisational teams in the country and recently oversaw the safety of international heads of state at the G20 Leaders’ Summit in Johannesburg.
A witness’ pleas
Like Van der Merwe, whistleblowers now hope that going public may force authorities to take their security seriously.
“Perhaps if we all go public and stand up for justice, there is no way that the state can ignore our actions. They would have to protect us, and we will reveal hard truths about South Africa…. Perhaps we should do this, in honour of Witness D. He is a hero; he paid for truth with his life.”
