Seeking justice as a whistleblower remains a treacherous path. The case of Mr Bloem illustrates both the personal cost of whistleblowing and the importance of institutional allies such as the Public Protector.

On 1 August 2025, the High Court ordered the Greater Taung Municipality to reinstate Mr Bloem — fourteen years after his disclosure of malpractice in the Municipality led to his suspension and eventual dismissal. After years of protracted litigation and sacrifice, the Court’s judgment has finally given him relief.

Background

In March 2011, Mr Bloem made a protected disclosure against the then Municipal Manager, Mr Mofokeng. He alleged that Mofokeng had authorised payments amounting to R36 million in contravention of the municipality’s supply chain management rules.

Two months later, on 17 May 2011, his complaint was elevated to the Council. The Council resolved to suspend Mofokeng. On the same day, a messenger arrived at Mr Bloem’s home carrying a letter signed by Mr Mofokeng himself. It announced that Mr Bloem was suspended, and that his suspension was to be treated as retrospective from January of that year.

The suspension was followed by a dismissal in November of 2012. In March 2014, Mr Bloem approached the MEC for Local Government and Human Settlements in Limpopo for recourse. An investigation followed, and by July 2014, it was recommended that he be reinstated. However, the Municipality refused to implement the MEC’s recommendations. At the same time, on 7 April 2014, he turned to the Public Protector, lodging a complaint.

Mr Bloem also approached the Labour Court, but justice remained elusive. In November 2016, the Labour Court dismissed his application outright and ordered him to pay the Municipality’s costs.

It was only in 2018 that the Public Protector released her report, which set out in detail what had happened. The report was grounded in extensive documentation, interviews, and legal analysis. It confirmed that Mr Bloem had suffered retaliation directly linked to his disclosure, and recommended that he be reinstated.

Initially the Public Protector did not oppose the matter brought to court by the Greater Taung Municipality on Mr Bloem’s behalf. However, in September 2024 the Platform to Protect Whistleblower in Africa agreed to take his matter and provided him with legal representation.

In August 2025, the High Court finally upheld that recommendation. After almost a decade and a half of uncertainty, the Court ordered that Mr Bloem be reinstated with back pay and interest.

The High Court’s judgment

At the High Court, the Municipality sought to set aside the Public Protector’s remedial action.  The Municipality did not dispute the existence of the protected disclosure or alleged that the information disclosed was false. Instead, the Municipality’s attack rested on technical points of law.

1.  Time limits: The Municipality argued the complaint was lodged outside the two-year window which a person has to lodge a complaint as prescribed by the Public Protector Act 23 of 1994. The Court rejected this, noting that Mr Bloem’s dismissal (November 2012) and complaint (April 2014) fell within time.
2. Link to occupational detriment: The Municipality claimed Mr Bloem only raised the protected disclosure as an “afterthought,” with no link between his disclosure and his suspension. However, the Public Protector showed that Mr Bloem’s suspension followed almost immediately after Mofokeng’s own suspension. Evidence further confirmed that Mr Bloem had raised his complaint that he was dismissed because of the disclosure with South African Municipal Workers Union, the provincial Department of Local Government and Traditional Affairs, and South African Police Service before approaching the Labour Court. The Court thus agreed that there was a clear link between the disclosure and the detriment.
3. Jurisdiction: The Municipality argued that the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) provided the exclusive path for relief. This meant that Mr Bloem would be limited to legal relief provided through a bargaining council, the CCMA or the Labour Court. The Court disagreed, confirming that the Protected Disclosures Act of 26 of 2000 allows whistleblowers to pursue other lawful avenues and that labour matters are not excluded from the Public Protector’s jurisdiction, where it is interrelated with a matter of maladministration within an organ of state.
4. Scope of remedial powers: The Municipality contended that reinstatement with back pay and interest exceeded the Public Protector’s powers. This argument was based on section 193 of the LRA and the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975. The Court affirmed that her remedial powers are broad and binding, intended to provide “effective, suitable, proper or fitting” redress. In this case, her order was rational, lawful, and proportionate to the prejudice suffered.

As a result, the Municipality’s application was dismissed with costs in favour of both the Public Protector and Mr Bloem.

Why this case matters

This judgment is significant for two reasons. First, it illustrates the immense personal toll on whistleblowers. Mr Bloem spent over a decade in uncertainty, lost his livelihood, and faced the repeated trauma of being disbelieved or ignored. Second, it clarifies the Public Protector’s jurisdiction and remedial powers in government labour-related whistleblowing matters. The case underscores a troubling truth: justice for whistleblowers is often delayed, fragmented across multiple forums, and achieved at a great personal cost. Yet it also shows that Chapter 9 institutions, such as, the Public Protector, can make a difference.

By Dr Johandri Wright, Post-doctoral Research Fellow