Malwande "Mulz" Williams

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD AT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Sixty days later, still no charge sheet: Transport whistleblower Esethu Hasane barred from his office This morning I reported for duty at the National Department of Transport. My 60-day precautionary suspension had lapsed. I was turned away and blocked from returning to my post. The Department signed a notice of precautionary suspension on 8 September 2026 and served it on me on 9 September. My departmental email was disabled the same day. What the suspension is really about The notice gives four grounds. Each one is in the Department's own words: 1That I "raised allegations of procurement irregularities in Communication Chief Directorate in May 2026." 2That I "also filed a criminal complaint" with the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks). 3That I "allegedly leaked the department confidential information" to Sunday World. 4That I was "seen on television allegedly giving live interview on eNCA." It concludes: "By your conduct, you have brought the department into disrepute." South Africans should read those grounds slowly. Two of the four are simply descriptions of reporting wrongdoing. The other two describe answering the Department in public. None of them is a charge. •I raised the allegations in May 2025, not May 2026. The notice gets the year wrong. That one digit hides a full year in which I reported internally to the very people who signed my suspension. •I did not lay a criminal complaint. I made a protected disclosure to the Department of Public Service and Administration. The DPSA referred the matter to the Hawks because it took the view that my employer should have reported it under section 34 of PRECCA and had not. I co-operated with the investigators and told the Department every time they came. The law and section 195 of the Constitution require exactly that of a public servant. •I have denied the leak on oath. The notice offers no document, no date and no communication to support it. •The eNCA interview was a reply. On 6 September, at 08:15, on the written instruction of the Acting Director-General, the Department published a statement that named me and called my claims of victimisation "devoid of the truth." I gave the interview four hours later. I was then ordered to stop speaking. The Department's own statement was never taken Still no charges Sixty days have passed and I have received no charge sheet. Nobody has put a single allegation to me in a disciplinary process. Meanwhile, the Auditor-General has made an R6.8-million finding on the communications contracts I refused to approve. The Department itself has appointed forensic investigators. Yet no disciplinary step has been taken against anyone involved in those contracts. The only person who has been suspended is me. "Expect the department to be on the other side" None of this surprises me. On 21 May 2025 I told the Acting Director-General that I was going to the Public Protector and the Public Service Commission. He replied in writing: "I authorise investigations in the department, no one else… But once you decide to escalate beyond me, expect the department to be on the other side, and my role to that of the protector of its integrity." On 3 September 2026, minutes after my request for records was refused, he wrote to a list that included the Minister's office and the forensic investigators: "There will be consequences." Six days later I was suspended. He has been as good as his word. I call on the Minister of Transport to lift this unlawful bar on my return to work. Since the Department insists on paying me to stay home, I will make good use of the time. I'm going back to preparing for my PhD defence, eating well, sleeping well, and being paid, for the eleventh time this year, to do absolutely nothing. Taxpayers, you're welcome. I would honestly rather be working.