Calling for Urgent Protection of Transport Department Whistleblower and Independent Probe into Procurement Allegations

7 September 2026 | Johannesburg

Public Interest SA has noted with grave concern the allegations made by Mr Esethu Hasane, a senior official in the National Department of Transport, concerning alleged procurement irregularities, the manner in which his disclosures were handled and his claims of subsequent intimidation and victimisation.

While Public Interest SA is not presently in a position to pronounce on the merits of every allegation made by Mr Hasane, the documentary account he has placed in the public domain raises serious questions that cannot simply be dismissed as an employment dispute.

At the heart of this matter are two distinct but interconnected issues: whether public funds were irregularly expended and whether a public servant who sought to raise concerns about that expenditure was adequately protected by the State.

Both require urgent attention.

Mr Hasane alleges that concerns relating to the procurement of livestreaming and communications services were raised internally long before the matter entered the public domain. He further contends that he subsequently escalated these concerns to several institutions responsible for public accountability and law enforcement.

Of particular concern are allegations that procurement may have been structured through multiple quotations falling below applicable thresholds and that substantial expenditure continued after concerns had already been raised.

These claims must be independently established. If substantiated, however, they would raise serious questions about procurement governance, consequence management and whether timely intervention could have prevented further expenditure.

Public Interest SA therefore welcomes the Department's announcement that an independent investigation has been commissioned. Such an investigation must be genuinely independent, sufficiently broad in scope and permitted to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Its findings should ultimately be made public, subject only to legitimate legal limitations.

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION CANNOT BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT

Equally troubling are Mr Hasane's allegations concerning his treatment following his disclosures.

South Africa cannot continue encouraging public servants to report suspected wrongdoing while leaving those who do so exposed to occupational detriment, intimidation, reputational attacks or threats to their physical and psychological safety.

Whether every allegation ultimately proves correct is not the threshold for protecting a person who makes a disclosure in good faith through recognised channels.

Whistleblower protection exists precisely because those who expose possible wrongdoing frequently challenge powerful institutional and financial interests.

We are particularly concerned by Mr Hasane's public statement that he fears for his life.

South Africa's recent history provides ample warning against treating such concerns casually.

The murders and persecution of whistleblowers and anti-corruption actors have demonstrated, tragically, that threats associated with exposing wrongdoing cannot be regarded merely as workplace disagreements.

Accordingly, Public Interest SA calls upon the relevant authorities to urgently conduct a formal security-risk assessment in respect of Mr Hasane and to institute appropriate protective measures should such an assessment establish a credible risk.

INSTITUTIONS MUST INVESTIGATE THE DISCLOSURE, NOT PUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER ON TRIAL

Public Interest SA is equally concerned about the tendency, increasingly evident in whistleblower cases, for the conduct, personality, motives or employment history of the person making a disclosure to become the dominant issue while the substance of the disclosure recedes into the background.

The two issues must not be conflated.

A whistleblower may have employment disputes with an institution. A whistleblower may be unpopular with colleagues or management. Courts or tribunals may even rule against a whistleblower on particular procedural or employment-related matters.

None of these circumstances, on their own, answers the fundamental question:

Were the allegations of wrongdoing properly investigated and what did the evidence establish?

That must remain the focus.

Public institutions carry a heightened constitutional responsibility when confronted with allegations involving public money. Their first instinct should be to preserve evidence, protect the integrity of investigations and safeguard those who make disclosures — not engage in public exchanges capable of creating the impression that the whistleblower rather than the alleged wrongdoing is under investigation.

CALL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Public Interest SA accordingly calls for:

1. The investigation into the procurement allegations to be conducted independently and expeditiously, with its material findings ultimately disclosed publicly;

2. The Auditor-General of South Africa and National Treasury, where appropriate, to ensure that any findings concerning irregular expenditure receive the necessary consequence-management response;

3. Any evidence suggesting criminal conduct to be referred without delay to the appropriate law-enforcement authorities;

4. An urgent and independent assessment of the safety and security risks confronting Mr Hasane;

5. The Department of Transport to ensure that no occupational detriment arises merely because an employee exercised rights afforded under whistleblower-protection legislation; and

6. The relevant parliamentary oversight structures to satisfy themselves that the allegations, the Department's response and the treatment of the whistleblower have all been subjected to adequate scrutiny.

Public Interest SA emphasises that these calls should not be interpreted as a finding of wrongdoing against any individual or entity implicated in Mr Hasane's disclosures. Those affected must be afforded the opportunity to respond, and due process must prevail.

But due process cannot become an excuse for institutional paralysis.

South Africa cannot credibly wage a war against corruption while those who provide the information necessary to fight it believe that speaking out could cost them their careers — or their lives.

The measure of our whistleblower protection regime is not what our legislation promises on paper.

It is what happens to the person the morning after they blow the whistle.

ENDS