DoC spin doctor to face disciplinary action

[Kevin Lancaster]

Blowing open R756 million “scam” did not save DoC spin doctor

Former communications spin doctor Wisane Ngobeni loses whistle-blower protection bid in court despite successfully exposing possible R756 million advertising “scam”

 

[entrepr]

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]

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.

 

[marine1]

Almost a billion rand? This just never stops

 

[gregmcc]

No amount of money stolen surprises me anymore.

 

[siraman]

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.

 

[marine1]

Yup

 

[rpm]

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]

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

 

[dominic]

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.

 

[tRoN]

Hang all the farckers involved!!

 

[Twista]

Give up!

 

[Skerminkel]

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]

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]

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.