Fear of retribution and a leadership that does not prioritise police integrity discourage officers from reporting corrupt colleagues.

Members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) are state employees, responsible for fighting crime and ensuring public safety. As such, they should be obliged to report corruption or other crimes committed by their colleagues.

SAPS officers conduct searches, make arrests and use force against members of the public, so reporting crime should be second nature. But insofar as they do report, this doesn’t consistently extend to offences committed by colleagues.

Indeed, the scale of police corruption currently being exposed before the Madlanga Commission suggests that many police, including senior officers, do not believe they are obliged to report corruption. And when they do, it is often to advance personal or factional power struggles.

Under the law, SAPS Code of Conduct and internal SAPS instructions, members must report graft. By signing the code, they undertake to ‘work actively towards preventing any form of corruption and to bring the perpetrators thereof to justice.’

The SAPS National Instruction 18 of 2019: Integrity Management states that ‘every [SAPS] employee’ must ‘immediately report to the relevant authorities, fraud, corruption, nepotism, maladministration’ and other violations of the law.

SAPS’ roughly 800 senior managers have a specific duty to report corruption under Section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (2004). Failure to do so could result in a 10-year prison sentence.

The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Act (2011) is broader. Section 29 requires all SAPS members to notify IPID ‘immediately after becoming aware’ of graft or other cases falling within IPID’s mandate. Contraventions carry up to two years’ imprisonment.

Notwithstanding these provisions, it appears unlikely that SAPS members will be disciplined or imprisoned for not reporting corruption.

The Institute for Security Studies analysed IPID data on Section 29 ‘failure to report’ cases falling within IPID’s mandate, for the period from April 2022 to March 2025. Three crucial findings were revealed.

First, some IPID provincial offices barely pay attention to these cases. Second, when police are found guilty in disciplinary proceedings recommended by IPID, the SAPS uniformly imposes only light penalties such as warnings or other ‘progressive disciplinary’ measures.

Third, apart from making disciplinary recommendations, IPID refers some Section 29 cases to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for criminal prosecution. But only one Section 29 criminal case was concluded in the three years studied (and the accused police were acquitted).

Police failure to report corruption is not only about the absence of disciplinary and legal sanctions. Internationally, police culture is characterised by a ‘code of silence’ that motivates officers to keep tight-lipped about colleagues’ wrongdoing.

Unless police organisations take firm steps to break the code, the motivation to remain silent may be compelling. Police who report colleagues’ offences may find themselves and their families facing violent retribution. At the Madlanga Commission, this risk is illustrated by the murder of witness Marius van der Merwe and the number of police witnesses who have asked to give evidence anonymously.

When he surrounded himself with heavily armed SAPS members at his 6 July 2025 press briefing, KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi may have wanted to warn colleagues against targeting him for speaking out about police corruption. Mkhwanazi alleged that senior SAPS and political leaders were involved in colluding with underworld figures to undermine criminal investigations.

Victimisation of police who report corrupt colleagues is not restricted to physical harm. Studies show that police often perceive loyalty and solidarity with colleagues as their highest duty. A positive expression of this duty is when police help colleagues in danger. But some interpret this duty to mean that providing information about graft is betrayal.

Those seen as turning against their colleagues may face ostracism and isolation within and outside their working world. Smear tactics may be used to undermine them. In dangerous situations, they may find themselves denied back-up when calling for support.

There are other reasons too, why police fail to report. They may be uncertain whether their anonymity as whistleblowers will be protected. Considering that many senior SAPS leaders appear to be compromised, this is understandable.

Whistleblower systems must properly protect the identity of police who report corruption. South Africa must also develop techniques to investigate police graft that work around officers’ reluctance to testify. Information gathered should be used strategically to construct criminal and disciplinary cases based on the testimony of willing witnesses and other evidence.

Considering the risks involved, the perception that no action will be taken is also likely to discourage reporting. In an appearance before Parliament’s ad hoc committee in February, SAPS Forensic Science Laboratory members said their attempts to report corruption were shrugged off by their superiors.

Reporting may also be impeded by the lack of alignment between the IPID Act and the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, on which authority police crimes should be reported to.

A 2024 Journal of Criminal Justice article argues that obliging police to report criminality by their colleagues will remove ‘the onus of the decision away from officers and make them feel they are not being disloyal for reporting.’

In South Africa, the problem is not the absence of such obligations, but that SAPS leadership does not sufficiently value and prioritise police integrity. Even when not directly involved, police appear dismissive of the legal obligation to report corruption. And when they do report, this often seems guided by factional considerations rather than ethical and legal requirements.

A decisive shift is needed to an SAPS culture that affirms those who act in support of integrity. The positive solidarity involved in defending colleagues must be clearly distinguished from the unethical solidarity of the code of silence.

Support for colleagues must always be combined with respect for the law and a commitment to doing what is ethically right.

Written by David Bruce, Independent Researcher and ISS Consultant