State Failed Slain Witness D Despite Refusal Of Protection, Expert Slams Police

The fatal shooting of Marius “Vlam” van der Merwe — known as Witness D at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry into police impropriety — has ignited fierce debate over South Africa’s witness protection shortcomings.

Van der Merwe, a 41-year-old security company owner, was gunned down outside his Brakpan home on Friday evening in full view of his wife and children. Police confirmed the attackers used an AK-47 before fleeing in a white Nissan NP200 bakkie with a canopy. A manhunt is under way.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: South Africans Allegedly Recruited To Fight In Russia–Ukraine War For R14 Million

Authorities also confirmed he was not under witness protection at the time, saying he had declined the offer of placement in the official programme.

Expert: Refusal of Witness D Protection ‘Didn’t Free State from Duty’

Speaking to Newzroom Afrika, Dr Johandri Wright of the Dullah Omar Institute said the government still had a responsibility to safeguard Van der Merwe, despite his refusal to enter the witness protection programme.

“Perhaps it is important to distinguish whistleblower protection and witness protection, because the law does not treat them the same,” Wright explained.

“Whistleblowers are essentially those who make disclosures in terms of the Protected Disclosures Act and the protection afforded under this Act is limited to occupational detriment and other labour-related matters.”

She added that individuals giving evidence before a commission or court are entitled to apply for protection under the Witness Protection Act, but not all whistleblowers automatically qualify.

Wright stressed that Van der Merwe remained entitled to state protection:
“Van der Merwe, as I understood, refused to enter the witness protection programme and this did not actually absolve the state from its constitutional duty to still provide him with protection.”

Gaps in the System and ‘Limited’ Protection Capabilities

Wright said the tragedy exposed major gaps in South Africa’s protection framework for whistleblowers and witnesses who decline formal placement.

“This just highlights our significant gap in the law for having alternative processes in place to provide physical and other forms of protections to whistleblowers – that is beyond just occupational detriment and that does not include entering the witness protection programme,” she said.

She noted the state could have taken various measures to safeguard Van der Merwe.
“For example, I say this with great caution, having police uniforms outside his house, acting as security personnel,” Wright told the broadcaster.

However, she warned that South Africa’s law enforcement institutions are not strong enough to offer robust protection:
“We have seen now that our main institution responsible for protecting people, SAPS, might not be as strong as we would hope this institution to be. This means the protection that we can practically give these people is quite limited.”

Van der Merwe, dubbed “the man with the bakkie,” testified in November that suspended EMPD acting chief Brigadier Julius Mkhwanazi had allegedly ordered him to dispose of a body in a suspected cover-up linked to a 2022 incident.

---

For More, Follow SurgeZirc SA On  Facebook, X,  Instagram and Bluesky