The tragicassassinationof Marius van der Merwe — widely known as “Witness D” in the proceedings of the Madlanga commission — has once again thrust a painful truth into the national discourse: in SA, those who dare to expose wrongdoing are more likely to face retaliation than protection. Instead of confronting this reality with honesty and urgency, some public officials have resorted to scapegoating the media for allegedly revealing his identity and placing him in harm’s way. This is neither accurate nor fair.
To begin with, the media has shown considerable restraint throughout the commission’s work. No credible report exists showing that journalists publicly disclosed Witness D’s personal details before his assassination. Those who sought to harm him did not need a newspaper headline to identify their target.
It is also reported that an attempt had already been made on his life months earlier. At a minimum, this should have triggered a heightened risk posture and proactive engagement from authorities. Yet, rather than interrogating the adequacy of state protection and security responses, we are being asked to believe that the mere act of testifying — and subsequent media coverage — is to blame.
Read Full Article on The Sowetan
[paywall]
That is a convenient narrative. It is also profoundly false. As seasoned broadcaster Redi Tlhabi correctly observed, Witness D’s assassination could well be linked to several sensitive matters he was involved in, including the disruption of illegal mining, illicit settlements and corruption in parts of Ekurhuleni — networks from which unscrupulous officers and criminals alike have profited handsomely.
To assume that his killing stems solely from his evidentiary role at the Madlanga commission is not only speculative; it obscures the wider, systemic dangers he faced. Minister of justice Mamoloko Kubayi has suggested that Witness D refused to enter the witness protection programme. Even if true, this cannot absolve the state.
Individuals who enter such programmes are not merely signing up for secure accommodation — they are sacrificing the rhythm of their lives: their families, work, financial stability and social support systems. The question, then, is not whether he refused protection, but what measures were offered to ensure that acceptance of protection was a viable option.
[/paywall]
