entrepr

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
2,195
This is not easy to follow. It seems to say he can be protected from the case where he was whistleblower, but not from the separate misdemeanours for which he was already facing a disciplinary?
 

siraman

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
1,992
According to the allegation, payments of around R40 million were made to the company without proof of any work being completed.

Jeeeesus a Christ!!! I'm gobsmacked.
 

siraman

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
1,992
Almost a billion rand? This just never stops

First it was the Hundreds stolen,thousands, then millions and now we are currently sitting @ 100 millions(Nkandla?) next they will be going for the billions and then the whole country goes belly-up.
 

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
66,307
This is not easy to follow. It seems to say he can be protected from the case where he was whistleblower, but not from the separate misdemeanours for which he was already facing a disciplinary?
Correct. The ruling is rather challenging to read:

In summary, the applicant has demonstrated that he has made a protected disclosure, which disclosure was made in good faith. The applicant is however not entitled to the relief he seeks in view of the failure to establish the requirements of the relief that he seeks to the extent that it was found that the intended disciplinary action will not constitute an occupational detriment, that he has not established what irreparable harm he would suffer, and further that he has alternative remedies.
 

MickeyD

RIP
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
139,117
Correct. The ruling is rather challenging to read:

In summary, the applicant has demonstrated that he has made a protected disclosure, which disclosure was made in good faith. The applicant is however not entitled to the relief he seeks in view of the failure to establish the requirements of the relief that he seeks to the extent that it was found that the intended disciplinary action will not constitute an occupational detriment, that he has not established what irreparable harm he would suffer, and further that he has alternative remedies.
.... even more confused now!

/stops drinking :p
 

dominic

Legal Expert: Telecoms
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
7,329
break it down people....

in order to get protection as a whistle blower you need to prove
- the disclosure is one which is protected (as defined in the Act - he got through here by pointing fingers)
- the disclosure is made in good faith (tick, somehow....)
- the disciplinary action will constitute an occupational detriment (very fancy way of saying that the people you pointed fingers at are going to be pissed and will make your life miserable)
- you will suffer irreparable harm
- you have no alternative remedy to assist

Correct. The ruling is rather challenging to read:

In summary, the applicant has demonstrated that he has made a protected disclosure, which disclosure was made in good faith. The applicant is however not entitled to the relief he seeks in view of the failure to establish the requirements of the relief that he seeks to the extent that it was found that the intended disciplinary action will not constitute an occupational detriment, that he has not established what irreparable harm he would suffer, and further that he has alternative remedies.
 

Skerminkel

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
3,696
President Jacob Zuma authorised the Special Investigating Unit to investigate a R756 million publicity tender with Media Corner.

My first thought was that, because he authorised the investigation, Zuma at least was not feeding at this trough. Then I remembered he also directed them to investigate Nkandla...
 

LPCPT

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
970
Basically it says that he was already in line for disciplinary action because of his dealings with another service provider. He then blows the whistle on an unrelated case and now he wants protection against all disciplinary against him.
Clever move, unfortunately, did not work for him.
 

siraman

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
1,992
Basically it says that he was already in line for disciplinary action because of his dealings with another service provider. He then blows the whistle on an unrelated case and now he wants protection against all disciplinary against him.
Clever move, unfortunately, did not work for him.

Whew!! Thank you,was confused as hell about the ruling.
 
Top