There's one way out of corruption, and SA isn't taking it

South Africa has, over the past two decades at least, seen countless citizens - some armed with specialised, desperately needed, academic qualifications and many years of field experience, and many ordinary state and private sector employees, all driven by a strong sense of "public interest" - being driven out of the labour force and, in some cases, out of the country for daring to act in the good interest of the public.

Many of them have been killed for standing in the path of the corruption gravy train and all of them have seen their livelihoods destroyed right in front of their eyes.

These good South Africans come in all ages, as well as racial and ethnic backgrounds, and they worked in many professional fields. They found themselves in their deplorable situations for trying to do good, not the opposite. And they did this in many ways, the best way each one of them as an individual knew how to – either naive about or mindful of the risks they were taking - but the sum total of their individual actions has been the same: planned acts of corruption and other abuses were thwarted and, in almost all cases, funds - the bulk of which had been earmarked for the delivery of government services to the people of South Africa - were prevented from being redirected into the pockets of unscrupulous individuals and companies.

Many of such companies, owned by individuals and groups that are either linked to powerful politicians or corrupt state employees, had been hastily established and registered weeks, if not days, before tenders were hastily awarded and public funds paid into them. In some cases, hundreds of millions of rands were paid over even before the ink used to sign the paperwork had dried or any work begun. The beneficiary companies were "special purpose vehicles" of a criminal kind.

Fearing that the illicit funds paid into their bank accounts could be taken away – "easy come, easy go style" - many rent-seeking "entrepreneurs" linked to such companies have been quick to go on buying sprees for expensive cars, properties, clothing, jewellery, and holidays in exotic destinations with stays in high-end hotels and resorts before they started delivering work, presumably in accordance with the contracts they signed.

In many cases, however, no work ever got delivered and yet some of such companies continue to operate and, until very recently, benefitted from government business. Companies that benefitted from hundreds of millions of rands paid by the Tembisa Hospital, most of them linked to the same individual, are a case in mind.

Corruption saboteurs; not whistle-blowers

I use the term "corruption saboteurs" in referring to the good South Africans described above, instead of the more popular, yet narrow, "whistle-blowers", because corruption saboteurs are not limited to individuals who blew a whistle – even if this is just figurative – but all of those good South Africans whose actions, or refusal to act, led to the prevention hundreds of millions of rands being illicitly paid into the bank accounts of 'special purpose vehicles of a criminal kind'.

The term includes all individuals who might have refused to sign a document or who resigned from a job to escape being forced to do so, and many others who have paid dearly for simply speaking truth to power, including activists and journalists.

Unlike a country like Egypt, which has the highest number of journalists in prison on the African continent for writing stuff the government doesn't want to hear, one might be misled by South Africa's zero count of people in imprison for reasons of conscience. The truth, however, is a lot grimmer. Few - whether they be human rights or lobby groups - seem to be aware or, worse, concerned by the level of silent persecutions that many 'corruption saboteurs' get subjected to in South Africa. The things they're made to go through are utterly overwhelming.

Unlike its apartheid predecessor, the post-1994 'democratic' state might not have known, official, programs to go after citizens who stand in the path of corruption, but many such acts have been known to be carried out – ostensibly without official sanction – by individuals using state resources.

Other tactics used against 'corruption saboteurs' include SLAPP suits (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) which the South African Constitutional Court has recently defined as inherent in South African law as characterising:?

Lawsuits initiated against individuals or organisations that speak out or take a position on an issue of public interest... not as a direct tool to vindicate a bona fide claim, but as an indirect tool to limit the expression of others... and deter that party, or other potential interested parties, from participating in public affairs.

Originally coined in the US, South Africa has seen two variants that whistleblower advocate, John Clarke, describes: the Strategic Litigation on Whistle-blowers (SLOW); and Strategic Litigation Against Media (SLAM), currently used by the notorious man from Nkandla against an investigative journalist.

It was also once used by Matshela Koko against Sikonathi Mantshantsha. SLAPP suits have recently been outlawed by the Constitutional Court. That may deter SLAPP suits, but until the corrupt are prosecuted and jailed, they will find other ways to retaliate. Other tools used by those implicated in corruption are character assassination through the media or, increasingly, assassination through hired guns known as iZinkabi.

Once driven out of their jobs and financially ruined, some 'corruption saboteurs'?are blacklisted to ensure that others, especially individuals and companies doing business with the state, never associate with them, either as employers, clients, or through business/project association.

'Corruption saboteurs' are the real heroes and heroines of post-apartheid South Africa but the lack of public awareness and appreciation of their contribution to the democracy South Africa wants, but still struggles, to be, ensures that statements issued about them by the criminals they exposed or whose corrupt actions they thwarted, get to control the public narrative.???

Well-known cases in this area include former National Director of Public Prosecutions, Advocate Vusi Pikoli, who had to part ways with auditing firm, SizweNtsalubaGobodo, after the latter was reportedly threatened by the ANC with losing government contracts if it kept him as a partner. All this happened after Pikoli's contract was terminated by former interim president, Kgalema Motlanthe, after Pikoli refused to give assurances that he would not go after then president in waiting, the notorious man from Nkandla, who later proved all 'doomsayers' right when all accounts pointed to him having handed South Africa on a platter to the notorious Gupta brothers and their business partner, Duduzane, his son. Duduzane became a multimillionaire within no time thanks to the lucrative tenders gained by his and the Gupta businesses from various state organs.??????

The criminal asset recovery account

It is worrisome that, despite the role played by a grown community of 'corruption saboteurs', there doesn't seem to be any urgency on the part of government to ensure that at least a good percentage – at least 25% - of the tens of millions said to have been recovered by South Africa's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) gets allocated to a programme dedicated to the support of 'corruption saboteurs'.

Government has announced that it is working on a legislation to protect and support these men and women but the lack of urgency in this process brings no joy to those who are directly or indirectly affected by the sorry plight of 'corruption saboteurs'.??

Given that the investigations that have led to the recovery of stolen funds would not have been successful without the assistance of named and unnamed 'corruption saboteurs', what is it that makes it difficult for a portion of the recovered funds – currently paid into the CARA (Criminal Asset Recovery Account) – to be allocated to a 'National Whistle-blowers Fund' that would be administered by a credible non-governmental organisation, preferably headed by a respected retired judge? Injecting needed funds into initiatives such as the Whistle-blower House would be one way to start.

International best practice in anti-corruption strategy has found that protection and support of whistleblowers are the cheapest and most effective tools to fight corruption. Sadly, it seems like the criminal syndicates have taken over South Africa's vital institutions already know that. What else, could explain lack of action on the part of those who control government, many of whom have been implicated in near-treasonous acts????