The FXI is saddened by the decision to dismiss Dr. Nokuzola Ntshona, after having been found guilty on a number of charges relating to leaking information to the media, and speaking to the media about conditions at Frere hospital.
Nthsona's dismissal will no doubt have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in the public health system. It may well lead to health workers refusing to speak to the media in future. Journalists may be forced to rely increasingly on confidential sources, which is far from ideal, or health workers may refuse to talk to the media at all, even off the record.
This will make reporting on the public health system virtually impossible, and in the process will deprive the public of the information they need to evaluate the state of our hospitals.
By acting against whistleblowers, the public service is doing itself a profound disservice, as whistleblowers are often motivated by a profound loyalty to the notion of public service, and may feel duty bound to speak out if they see things going wrong. Often whistleblowers have everything to lose and nothing to gain from speaking out. Like Ntshona, they may even lose their jobs. But they are critically important for the health of our public institutions. They are often the canaries in the coalmine of the public service, and their role should be protected rather than vilified.
The Department has maintained that she has violated Departmental regulations. What they do not seem to take into account is that such regulations must be implemented in a constitutional manner, which means that Ntshona's right to freedom of expression should be taken into account. The Department would have to prove that it suffered substantial prejudice for its right to reputation to take precedence over her right to freedom of expression. This a strict test.
In the Costa Gazi case, the Pretoria High Court found that no substantial prejudice had been proved, flowing from the statements that he made, and for which we was dismissed. He was reinstated. We suspect that Ntshona's case may be similar, as it will be difficult for the Department to prove what actual prejudice they have suffered from her statements.
In speaking out about the conditions at Frere hospital, in support of Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge's statements about conditions at Frere hospital constituting a 'national emergency', she was commenting on a matter that was of considerable public interest, and was also refuting official attempts to paper over the extent of the problem at the hospital.
Therefore, there are grounds for arguing that she was a whisleblower, and that there was an overriding public interest in speaking to the media about the issue. The Protected Disclosures Act authorises situations where people speak to the media directly, without having necessarily taken matters through official channels, if it can be shown that it was in the public interest for the whistleblower to have gone to the media directly. In dismissing her, the Department does not seem to have taken the public interest nature of her statements into account.
