Marius van der Merwe’s murder has drawn widespread outrage and criticism of the government’s protection of witnesses testifying at the commission.
The fatal shooting of a key witness has ignited a fierce national debate, placing South Africa’s witness protection system and the integrity of a major corruption inquiry under intense scrutiny. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mmamoloko Kubayi, has mounted a robust defence of the state’s mechanisms, but her comments have drawn sharp criticism and exposed deep fault lines between the need for security and the principles of open justice.
The victim, Marius van der Merwe—a former Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department (EMPD) officer and private security firm owner—was gunned down outside his Brakpan home. His prior testimony before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry into police corruption was explosive, directly implicating suspended EMPD top cop, Julius Mkhwanazi, in criminal activity. This context makes his murder not just a tragic crime, but a potential act of intimidation with grave implications for the rule of law.
Public and media outrage has been swift, focusing on whether the state failed in its duty to protect a citizen who came forward at great personal risk. In response, Minister Kubayi presented a starkly different narrative. She asserted that Van der Merwe was offered state protection but declined it—a crucial detail that, if accurate, shifts the locus of responsibility. However, this claim is contested by sources within the security sector, highlighting a critical information gap that undermines public trust.
‘They have done everything in their power to protect’
Kubayi expressed full confidence in the commission’s efforts, stating, “I don’t think that they have been negligent. They have done everything in their power to protect.” She further shifted blame outward, criticising the media and the public for compromising witness anonymity. In a remarkable admission, she claimed that neither she, her department, nor some commissioners knew the identity of ‘witness D’ (understood to be Van der Merwe), but that the media did. “This was a concern,” she said.
This argument was immediately challenged by security experts, who labelled the commission’s attempts to conceal his identity as “flimsy.” They argued that anyone familiar with the case could easily deduce who he was from the specifics of his testimony. This critique points to a systemic issue: protection programmes often fail when pseudonyms are used without robust operational security to shield a witness’s physical location and daily life.
The Minister’s proposed solution has proven even more controversial. She called for a review of how testimony is given, strongly suggesting that future commission witnesses testify in camera—behind closed doors. “We must recognise… that public interest information cannot supersede or be above the right to life,” she argued, framing support for closed sessions as a patriotic duty.
Need for review
This proposal strikes at the heart of a democratic tension. Public inquiries like the Madlanga Commission derive their legitimacy from transparency. Open testimony allows the public to assess evidence firsthand, holds the powerful accountable in the court of public opinion, and builds trust in the findings. Media houses have previously legally challenged moves toward secrecy, citing the paramount importance of public interest, transparency, and accountability.
Kubayi attempted to broaden her argument, drawing an analogy to court proceedings where media coverage can identify prosecutors and magistrates, thereby “put[ting] their lives at risk.” She concluded, “We support the openness of democracy… but let’s also look at the unintended consequences… They [criminals] must not prosper, while our witnesses die.”
‘Support them’
The Minister’s stance, while highlighting a genuine crisis of witness safety, raises profound questions. Does moving towards secrecy inadvertently let criminal intimidation succeed in silencing public scrutiny? Could a hybrid model—where sensitive identities are protected through advanced redaction and secure testimony rooms, while the substance of evidence remains public—offer a middle path? The murder of Marius van der Merwe is not just a homicide case; it is a stress test for South Africa’s ability to confront systemic corruption without sacrificing the democratic values it seeks to uphold. The state’s next moves will define whether this inquiry can continue effectively or if the shadows will be allowed to deepen.