A man who is the only witness to a murder and who claimed that his life is now in danger as the police have divulged his name and details on social media, turned to court in an urgent bid for the SAPS to immediately pay him R2 million so that he can relocate to an undisclosed location.

The applicant, only identified as KM, asked the Kimberley High Court to declare the alleged conduct of the State to be unlawful and unjust for leaking his personal information and to find the State to be in contravention of the constitutional rights of the applicant.

He said he needed R2 million for his relocation, rental, security and living expenses at a location of his choice, without being subjected to the Witness Protection Programme as he does not trust the state anymore.

The applicant wanted a further order allowing him to only communicate with whoever is handling the murder case through Teams or Zoom as he fears that his location might be leaked.

He told the court that earlier this month he witnessed the murder of his employer in Kuruman. He subsequently made statements to the police investigating the incident expecting that his personal details would be kept confidential.

The applicant said he, however, discovered, on his family WhatsApp group, that a confidential internal police communication which contains his name and his address had been leaked.

According to him, the communication appears to have found its way to other social media platforms as well. The applicant said a few days after the shooting of his employer, an alleged gangster was also killed.

He claimed the latter killing appears to have been connected on social media to the murder he had witnessed, and he now fears for his life.

He stated that the police are aware of his new address, but he does not trust that they will keep this confidential in light of the previous leakage of information.

The applicant told the court that the Witness Protection Programme is not a viable option for him as it would place him under the control of the very people (the police) who he does not trust and have already failed to protect him.

The commander in charge of the incident denies that any private information about the applicant was disclosed by SAPS to the media or on social media. The officer said that during an interview with the applicant he enquired about the latter’s safety and had offered him witness protection, which is still available, but which was declined.

Judge Cecile Williams said the only reasonable inference to be made from the disclosure of the private police communication is that the leak came from within the police. How it spread to other social media platforms can at this stage only be speculated upon.

The police have failed in their duty to protect the applicant and should at least investigate the source of the leak, she said.

She acknowledged that the applicant’s fears are real, but she pointed out that the Witness Protection Programme falls under the prosecuting authority and not the SAPS. Thus, if he chose this route, he had nothing to fear from the SAPS, she said in turning down his application.

Source link