Constitutional Court: Prasa Whistleblowers' Last Bid for Review

• Martha Ngoye and Tiro Holele have applied to the Constitutional Court to rescind its decision not to consider their appeal.
• The Labour Court initially ordered their reinstatement, but the Labour Appeal Court overturned this ruling.
• #UniteBehind has applied to intervene in the court case, arguing that the dismissal of Ngoye and Holele's appeals was due to their honesty and refusal to turn a blind eye to corruption within Prasa.

Their fight is our fight. In this respect, we are less interested in the abstract legal theories that resulted in the current disjuncture between right and remedy on an individual level.

Martha Ngoye and Tiro Holele's fight to have their whistleblower status recognised and be reinstated at the Passenger Rail Agency South Africa (Prasa) has been ongoing for five years. The Labour Court initially ordered their reinstatement, but the Labour Appeal Court overturned this ruling. The Constitutional Court declined to hear an appeal, leaving Ngoye and Holele with no choice but to apply to rescind its decision not to consider their appeal. This is a last-ditch effort in their battle to have their honesty and refusal to turn a blind eye to corruption recognised.

Activist Zackie Achmat's affidavit highlights the crucial role that whistleblowers like Ngoye and Holele played in exposing widespread looting at Prasa. According to Achmat, #UniteBehind's struggle over the past decade to 'arrest the rot' at Prasa has been intertwined with the facts surrounding Ngoye's and Holele's whistleblowing. Their fight is seen as a key part of the organisation's efforts to combat corruption within Prasa.

Achmat argues that neither the Labour Appeal Court nor the Constitutional Court has taken proper account of the larger picture when dismissing Ngoye and Holele's appeals. He states that their dismissal was due to their honesty and refusal to turn a blind eye to corruption within Prasa. #UniteBehind intends to argue in terms of Section 172 of the Constitution, which allows the court to declare any law or conduct inconsistent with the Constitution as invalid, if granted leave to intervene.

Lawyers advising clients on whistleblower protection should note that this case highlights the challenges faced by whistleblowers in South Africa, particularly in the context of corruption allegations against Prasa. Compliance officers may want to review their organisations' reporting mechanisms for suspected corrupt activity and ensure they are in compliance with Section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.

Source: Original reporting via [Source]