A Northern Cape man, identified only as “Mr KM”, who claims the police released his identity and address on social media platforms after he witnessed the murder of his boss, has failed in his efforts to have the state pay him R2m so that he can relocate with his family and start a new life.
In an urgent application, Mr KM asked the Northern Cape High Court to declare the conduct of the state to be unlawful and unjust by leaking his personal information to media outlets and to find the state had violated his constitutional rights.
He asked judge Cecile Williams to order the minister of police to make a one-off payment of R2m to him within seven days. He told her the payment would be used for him to move to an undisclosed location and pay his rent, security and living expenses without the involvement of the witness protection programme, as he no longer held any trust in the state.
He asked the court to make an additional order allowing only the investigator handling the murder case be allowed to communicate with him, and that this be done only via Teams or Zoom.
Mr KM said he was the sole eyewitness to the murder of his boss in Kuruman on June 1. He had reported this to the police, made a statement and believed his details would be kept confidential. However, he found out on his family WhatsApp group that a confidential internal police document containing his name, the location where the murder had taken place and his home address had been leaked.
Information contained in the document had “found its way to other social media platforms as well”, he told the court. He said stories circulating involved reports of the killing of an alleged gangster, who used the same modus operandi, just a few days after his boss had been shot dead. The killings were connected in the social media reports, leading Mr KM to fear for his life.
He said he confronted both junior and senior police officers involved in the murder investigation with the media reports and though they were shocked, they did nothing to protect him or to investigate the source of the information leak.
Mr KM said he was so shocked and traumatised by the events that he was booked off sick for a week and temporarily moved to another town as he was scared for his life. He said he informed the police of the address he had moved to but he did not trust them to keep the information confidential because of the previous leak.
He told the court that the witness protection programme was not a viable option for him because it would remove his choice of location, restrict his freedom and place him under the control of the police, who were the very people he did not trust and had already failed to protect him.
Mr KM told the court he needed a payment of R2m to enable him to relocate, provide for his living costs, security, medical and therapy costs, as well as loss of earnings for five years.
The state opposed the claim, denying that Mr KM's private information had been disclosed by the police to the media or any social media platform. They could not say how Mr KM had come to see the internal police communication documents.
Williams said it had been confirmed to her that the witness protection programme fell under the control of the NPA and not the SAPS — and so his fear and distrust of the police, 'whether founded or unfounded, is misplaced as far as the witness protection programme is concerned'
A senior police colonel told the court he had taken Mr KM's details down and had offered him witness protection — something that was declined because Mr KM did not want his freedom of movement restricted and said he would make his own arrangements. He told the court that the offer of witness protection was still available to Mr KM.
Mr KM responded by denying having received any offer of witness protection, but he in any case did not trust the police and did not want them knowing his location. He accused the police of putting his life at risk and showing no interest in investigating who within their ranks was responsible for leaking his personal details.
The police produced the press release that was issued following the murder of Mr KM's employer as evidence that the information they had made public did not include any details relating to him. The release, they pointed out, did not even identify the deceased.
“In my view the only reasonable inference to be made from the disclosure of the private police communication is that the leak came from within the police ... The police have in my view failed in their duty to serve and protect the applicant,” said Williams.
However, she also found that Mr KM had confirmed that he had not received any threats from the police — and though she had no doubt that his fears were real, she did not believe he had made out a good enough case for his R2m claim.
Williams said it had been confirmed to her that the witness protection programme fell under the control of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and not the SAPS — and so his fear and distrust of the police, “whether founded or unfounded, is misplaced as far as the witness protection programme is concerned”.
The NPA, in its 2023 annual report, described the witness protection programme as the provision of temporary protection, support and related services to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, and their related people, in judicial proceedings. Participation is voluntary and no person can be forced to enter or remain on the programme. Conditions are strict, the witness is isolated from family and their community and cannot choose where they are placed.
Williams therefore found that because a remedy to Mr KM's situation that did not involve the police was available, he had “failed to make out a case for the extraordinary relief sought”.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.