Ahead of the looming May 14 deadline for public submissions on the newly released Protected Disclosures Bill, a coalition of civil society organisations, led by Corruption Watch (CW), has called on the Department of Justice (DoJ) to extend the comment period for the Bill, citing "serious gaps" in the draft legislation.

Released last month by Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi, the Bill aims to strengthen South Africa’s whistleblower framework.

However, CW and its partners argue that the public has not been given enough time or information to provide meaningful input.

"We are of the view that there have not been sufficient public-facing endeavours by the DoJ to help make the process of submissions richer and more meaningful," the group stated.

While welcoming the efforts to protect those who report corruption, the civil society collective has identified several concerning areas in the current version of the Bill.

The main concern is the proposal to have a single retired judge, appointed by the President and overseen by the Ministry of Justice, handle whistleblower protection.

The organisations argue that this structure fails to provide the necessary independence, as the authority would still be under the influence of the Executive rather than reporting directly to Parliament.

Furthermore, the group argued that relying on one individual is “practically inadequate”, noting that the Zondo Commission required years of work by multiple commissioners to document only a fraction of local State capture. The organisations also expressed concerns regarding the lack of clarity about the appointee's tenure.

The coalition – which includes the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution; Courage Hub SA; Open Secrets; Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa-Southern Africa; Good Governance Africa; Thandeka Gqubule-Mbeki and Martha Ngoye – is demanding an overhaul of the proposed structure, arguing that the current draft does not meet the "lived reality" of whistleblowers, who often face extreme risks.

As an immediate, temporary solution, the group proposed that a retired Chief Justice be appointed to bridge the gap until formal legislation is passed.

Ultimately, it want the establishment of an independent, nation-wide Whistleblower Regulatory Authority that reports directly to Parliament, not the Executive, for complete independence.

The group highlighted that the proposed legislation also fails to provide emergency financial aid or immediate support timelines for whistleblowers.

It lacks a framework to suspend accused individuals during investigations, leaving informants completely exposed and consequently, terminated employees endure 12 to 18 months of total income loss before their cases are resolved.

They argue that ”financial starvation” is the primary tactic used to silence informants.

The group called for mandatory, immediate relief within 21 days for whistleblowers left unprotected by the current Protected Disclosures Act and temporary job restoration for dismissed informants while their cases are being evaluated.

They also called for the creation of a dedicated emergency fund to provide income support and for the provision of free legal counsel starting when the initial disclosure is made.

The group also noted that the risk of retaliation is not suitably addressed.

The group said with corruption largely centred in South African State institutions, public servants face the highest risks when exposing wrongdoing.

“Excluding them from financial rewards eliminates a crucial incentive for those most needed to blow the whistle, making it essential to align local laws with international practices that include public sector workers. Furthermore, incentive structures must expand beyond criminal convictions to include rewards for whistleblowing that leads to civil recoveries, asset forfeiture, and Special Investigating Unit actions,” they added.

The organisations argued that although the definition of "discloser" was broadened, the Bill remains “stuck in employer-employee frameworks” regarding its language, remedies, and structure.

This makes it difficult for essential civil society and media watchdogs to qualify as authorised persons, they argued, explaining that the legislation needs to be rewritten to align its language and functional design with its intended purpose.

The group pointed out that anonymous disclosure rights lack technical infrastructure and there is no immunity for evidence gathering.

The organisations also highlighted the lack of accountability for reprisals, saying while the proposed Bill prohibits workplace detriment and criminalises violations, it lacks practical, clear procedures for investigating and prosecuting reprisals.

To effectively protect whistleblowers and ensure accountability, the legislation needs stronger, more explicit mechanisms for handling intimidation and violence, ensuring these cases receive urgent, dedicated attention, they stressed.