Progress On Zondo Reforms Highlights Both Gains And Gaps 

​

Every piece of reform that gets implemented is hard-won.

It usually goes through a drawn-out process of design, including multi stakeholders, then it’s ironed out into a piece of legislation, where the public has input before going through parliamentary approval processes.

Then the challenge of effective implementation begins.

This has certainly been the case with three important pieces of legislation flowing from Judge Raymond Zondo’s recommendations that recently took major steps forward, nearly four years after his final report into state capture was published in June 2022.

The Public Service Amendment Act, gazetted on 1 April, takes direct aim at cadre deployment by shifting administrative powers – including over appointments – from politicians to heads of department.

Alongside it, the Public Administration Management Amendment Act strengthens ethical standards and accountability across the public service.

Both Acts go to the heart of what the Zondo Commission identified as a key enabler of state capture: the blurring of the line between political office and the professional public service.

The third law is the Protected Disclosures Bill, which was released for public comment this month with a deadline of 14 May 2026.

BLSA believes it is important for business leaders to take this opportunity to contribute to its final form.

Taken together, the legislation will go a long way towards strengthening the fight against state corruption, but none goes far enough.

The Public Service Amendment Act shifts administrative powers – including hiring, firing, and day-to-day management – from ministers and MECs to heads of department.

For the first time since 1994, the authority to appoint senior officials and run government departments will rest with professional administrators rather than political principals.

The Act also bars heads of department and those reporting directly to them from holding political office in any party.

Together with the Public Administration Management Amendment Act – which tightens rules on public servants doing business with the state and strengthens financial disclosure obligations – the reforms address the structural conditions that allowed state capture to take root.

Both acts will also contribute to the overall drive to professionalise the public service, though much more work is needed in this area.

Weaknesses, however, remain.

The appointment of heads of department – the very officials now granted these expanded powers – stays in the hands of the president and premiers.

Political influence can therefore still enter the system at the top and filter downward.

Critics have also pointed out that the Public Service Amendment Act lacks a strong independent accountability mechanism: it is not yet clear how heads of department will themselves be held to account, or removed, if they fail to perform or act improperly.

The legislation is a necessary step, but it will only deliver results if it is accompanied by genuine professionalisation of the public service and robust oversight structures that do not yet fully exist.

The acts are now law – the window to shape their content has closed.

The same cannot be said for the Protected Disclosures Bill, and that is why BLSA is urging business leaders to engage with it before the 14 May deadline.

Whistleblowers are among the most important weapons in any society’s fight against corruption.

The Zondo Commission made this plain: much of what we now know about state capture came to light because individuals were willing to come forward at enormous personal risk.

Corruption, by its nature, happens behind closed doors.

It relies on silence.

Whistleblowers break that silence – and they pay a heavy price for doing so.

South Africa has seen too many cases of people who exposed wrongdoing only to face dismissal, financial ruin, harassment, and, in the most extreme cases, assassination.

The law has consistently failed to protect them adequately.

The Protected Disclosures Bill aims to change that.

It introduces stronger confidentiality protections, making it a criminal offence to reveal a whistleblower’s identity.

It also extends witness protection to disclosers from the moment they come forward, not only once they are testifying.

It requires all employers, public and private, to put in place formal procedures for receiving and handling disclosures.

It sets time limits on how quickly disclosures must be acknowledged and acted on.

And it opens the door to financial awards in cases where a disclosure leads to a successful prosecution.

But the bill has weaknesses that the public comment process should address.

The circumstances under which protection can be revoked lack clarity, creating uncertainty for potential disclosers.

The financial support provisions – legal assistance, compensation, possible awards – need to be more precisely defined if they are to serve as a genuine safety net.

The scope of those protected remains largely limited to employees in formal working relationships, leaving independent contractors, volunteers, and others outside the net.

And while the burden of proof shifts to employers to show that action taken against a whistleblower was unrelated to their disclosure, enforcement mechanisms need to be robust enough to make that protection real rather than theoretical.

Business has a direct stake in getting this right.

BLSA has long backed stronger whistleblower protections in practice as well as in principle – over the past two years, we have provided financial support to the non-profit organisation, Whistleblower House, enabling it to assist 255 whistleblowers with financial, legal and counselling services.

Companies that create cultures where wrongdoing can be reported safely are more resilient, better governed and less exposed to the reputational and legal costs of undetected misconduct.

The bill presents an opportunity to lock in standards that will benefit both sectors.

We encourage BLSA members and the entire business community to participate in the consultation process and  make submissions before 14 May, to help ensure that when this law is enacted, it gives whistleblowers the protection they deserve.

While it has taken four years, BLSA does credit the government with addressing these areas of the Zondo recommendations.

There are two other important Zondo recommendations that need action: a National Anti-Corruption Charter and an Anti-State Capture and Corruption Commission that is independent of state influence.

There has been no movement at all on the former, but there has been progress on the establishment of the commission.

In August 2025, the National Anti-Corruption Advisory Council (NACAC) published its final report, which recommended the establishment of the Office of Public Integrity and Anti-Corruption (OPI) as a Chapter 9 institution.

The OPI would absorb the mission, powers, and resources of the SIU, maintaining its full portfolio of work.

NACAC’s report is under consideration by the national executive, and a workshop was held in December 2025 to incorporate comments and recommendations from law enforcement agencies.

These developments are encouraging, and BLSA will monitor and provide input at every opportunity.

Given the extent to which corruption has entrenched itself in government structures, any area of weakness will be seized upon and exploited.

We therefore need to ensure that each piece of legislation designed to combat corruption is as watertight as possible because the application of the rule of law is essential to the business environment.

*This column was first published in the Business Leadership South Africa (BLSA) weekly newsletter. The author, Busisiwe “Busi” Mavuso, is the CEO of BLSA.

*The views Busi Mavuso expresses in this column are not necessarily those of The Bulrushes

The post Progress On Zondo Reforms Highlights Both Gains And Gaps appeared first on The Bulrushes.