Bill could scare off whistleblowers

Serious concerns have been raised about several sections of the Whistleblower Protection Bill, which experts say could sabotage the intention of the bill by scaring off potential whistleblowers.

The latest clause that has raised concern is section 52.1 (d), which allows the commissioner to “revoke whistleblower protection … if he or she is of the opinion [that] the disclosure of improper conduct principally involves questioning the merits of government policy, including the policy of a public body.”

Lawyer Norman Tjombe, an outspoken advocate for human rights, described this section as “blatantly unconstitutional” yesterday.

He said in his view this section, along with the excessive penalties and jail time for false reporting, which he said were also unconstitutional, would “in fact discourage people from disclosing suspected cases of corruption, especially if there is a perception that such corrupt practices are official policy”.

In fact, both sections “will not advance the cause of the anti-corruption drive, but will ensure that fewer and fewer people will be willing to expose themselves to the wrath of this law.”











He explained that without the “incentive of protection against what would invariably be powerful people”, potential whistleblowers will not risk reporting corruption “to the detriment of everyone.”

He warned that there was even a risk that the provision could be used to “target opposition parties and vocal social activists, who invariably complain that certain spending priorities or the allocation of resources to certain individuals or entities are tantamount to corruption.”

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) yesterday also criticised the section of the bill, which it said “in essence says that a whistleblower can have their protection revoked if they are critical of government policy. On the face of it, this seems to be both unacceptable and unconstitutional.”

IPPR director Graham Hopwood said in addition to the other concerns that had been raised about the bill, the IPPR recommended that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted.

“The IPPR believes there are enough serious concerns about the drafting of this bill to warrant it being referred to a standing committee for public hearings.”

Toni Hancox, director of the Legal Assistance Centre yesterday, said the section that granted permission to withdraw protection when government policy was questioned “does not fit in a constitutional and open society. Are we not entitled to question what is done with taxpayer money?”

Yesterday the bill was debated in parliament for the second time, with some expressing worry that the government intended to pass the bill as quickly as possible, before any of its flaws could be addressed.



Since the tabling of the bill last month, many have praised aspects of the proposed legislation, emphasising that it is long overdue.



Nevertheless, several clauses of the bill are said to be worrying.



“The IPPR is concerned that some parts of the bill miss their mark. Of particular concern are the lack of independence for various bodies and disproportionate punishments for false reporting,” the policy think tank stated on its website.



The IPPR explained that if the whistleblower agencies to be established were perceived to be a function of government instead of independent and impartial, “they will not gain credibility with the public.”



Anti-Corruption Commission director Paulus Noa yesterday referred Namibian Sun to the Minister of Justice, Albert Kawana, for comment. The minister could not be reached for comment.