A man identified as KM took legal action against the South African Police Service (SAPS) following a disastrous leak of his personal information.

As the sole witness to a murder involving his employer, KM claimed his life was in danger and was seeking R2 million to facilitate his relocation amidst fears for his safety.

KM sought relief in the Northern Cape High Court in Kimberley, expressing the urgent need for relocation funds. The funds include living costs, enhanced security measures, medical support, and compensation for lost earnings spanning at least five years.

His plight stems from a tragic incident that occurred on June 1, 2025, when he witnessed the horrifying murder of his boss in Kuruman. Following the incident, KM made statements to the police, trusting that his identity would be kept confidential.

However, his trust was shattered when he unexpectedly discovered that his name and home address had been divulged in an internal police communication that circulated on a family WhatsApp group and subsequently spread across social media platforms.

Due to this and the subsequent reports of the killing of an alleged gangster using the same modus operandi just a few days after the fatal shooting of his employer, which appears to have been connected, KM said he feared for his life.

He said he confronted the police officers involved in the investigation, and they expressed shock at the disclosure of his details but took no action to rectify the situation or to honour their commitment to protect him.

He added that this has left him shocked and traumatised, and he was booked off sick for a week, during which he temporarily relocated to a nearby town in a desperate attempt to ensure his safety. Yet even this move has not eased his fear as he remains sceptical about the police’s ability to keep his new address confidential.

Furthermore, he stated that he finds the Witness Protection Programme unappealing as it would restrict his freedom and place him under the authority of those he no longer trusts.

In response, the commander in charge of the incident, Colonel Kanakang, said he had an interview with KM three days after the incident and wanted to obtain information regarding the deceased’s business and possible enemies. 

During the interview, Colonel Kanakang said he enquired about KM’s safety and offered him protection. KM declined as he did not want his freedom of movement restricted and informed him that he will temporarily make his own arrangements. 

Colonel Kanakang said the option of placing KM in the Witness Protection Programme was still available.

In his replying affidavit, KM denied that the Colonel Kanakang or any of the police involved had offered him witness protection.  He reiterated that he does not trust the police and does not want them to know of his location. 

He said they have violated his constitutional rights and put his life at risk without displaying any interest in investigating who, within their ranks, was responsible for leaking his confidential information.

Looking at the evidence, judge Cecile Williams said the media statement filed by police in their supplementary affidavit makes no mention KM’s name, it does not even name the deceased. 

Judge Williams said it’s not clear whether this was the only media statement released, however, the only reasonable inference to be made from the disclosure of the private police communication, was 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 in my view failed in their duty to serve and protect the applicant (KM) and at the very least have to investigate whom amongst their ranks is responsible for such a violation and deal with it effectively,” said Williams.

While acknowledging KM’s fears, Justice Williams clarified that the Witness Protection Programme falls under the jurisdiction of the National Prosecuting Authority, separate from the police, suggesting that KM had nothing to fear should he opt for this route.

“There being a statutory remedy available to the applicant (KM), which does not involve SAPS, the applicant has failed to make out a case for the extraordinary relief sought.  That being the case, the application must fail.”

KM’s application was dismissed.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. 

Source link