Esethu Hasane, Director of Research and Content Development at the National Department of Transport, has written an open letter dated 6 September 2026 to President Cyril Ramaphosa, Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Mmamoloko Kubay, and Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni. Writing in his personal capacity, Hasane sets out what he describes as occupational detriment that followed his reports of irregular expenditure on live-streaming services.
Background and initial report
Hasane joined the Department's communications function in July 2023. Soon afterwards he was asked to approve a service provider for live-streaming departmental events on social media platforms. He refused, recording his reasons in writing and disclosing a prior private-sector relationship with the same provider that created a conflict of interest.
He cites Auditor-General figures showing individual awards of between R830 000 and R999 000 – most above the R1 million threshold that would have required open competitive bidding – and total payments exceeding R13 million over two financial years. Hasane reported the procurement internally on several occasions in 2025. He later submitted a protected disclosure to the Auditor-General, the Presidency, the Public Protector, SCOPA and other bodies. Only after that disclosure did the Auditor-General classify at least R5.96 million as irregular expenditure arising from quotations structured below the competitive-bidding threshold.
Sequence of alleged events
According to the letter, an anonymous internal memorandum calling for Hasane's dismissal surfaced in September 2024. Metadata later linked the document to a departmental computer and a senior official. The Department's own investigator found in April 2025 that the letter amounted to misconduct committed with malicious intent and that Hasane himself had committed none. The investigator recommended a change in his reporting line. Hasane states that the Department confirmed his grievance was substantiated, yet subsequently used the same process to investigate him without notice or formal charge.
He lists a series of subsequent actions he regards as detriment. These include verbal warnings from the Acting Director-General after he approached external oversight bodies; accusations that he had fabricated lies; threats of legal action; a September 2026 response to an access-to-information request that warned of “consequences”; being informed he was “in contempt of the Department” for requesting documents the law entitled him to receive; and a national media statement issued by the Department on 6 September 2026 declaring his victimisation claims “devoid of the truth” – a statement he says contradicts the Department's own investigator's report, grievance outcome and clinical assessment.
Hasane further records that key documents have been withheld or cannot be located: the forensic unit note that identified the author of the anonymous letter, his second grievance outcome, and legal advice the Department itself relies on in court proceedings. The computer on which the letter was authored is said to have been reported lost after an internal audit. Operational responsibilities were stripped from him and sub-units redirected, contrary to his signed performance agreement. He remains under the reporting line of the official identified in the internal investigation, despite recommendations from the investigator, the Department's clinical provider and his own grievance process.
Public funds, he notes, were used to defend the officials implicated by the Department's investigation while his request for equivalent legal assistance was refused.
Personal toll and legal claims
Hasane describes a psychological collapse that led to his hospitalisation at Vista Clinic in March 2025. He had recorded the harm in writing months earlier. The Department's contracted clinical provider later assessed him as presenting with significant work-related stress and anxiety linked to ongoing conflict with his direct supervisor and a toxic work environment. Access to the employee wellness programme was offered only after a lengthy delay.
He situates these events within the Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000, which defines occupational detriment and prohibits it absolutely where it arises from a protected disclosure; section 186(2)(d) of the Labour Relations Act; section 195 of the Constitution on professional ethics and the efficient use of resources; section 34 of the Constitution guaranteeing access to courts; and the Occupational Health and Safety Act duty to provide a safe working environment once an employer is on notice.
Requests for action
Hasane asks the President to ensure the matter receives attention given that it concerns the head of a national department. He asks Minister Kubayi to treat the case as a study in the finalisation of the Protected Disclosures Bill, and Minister Ntshavheni to consider the principle of using official government communication channels to issue adverse public statements about an employee who has made a protected disclosure while investigations remain pending.
For his employer he seeks four concrete steps: implementation of the recommended change in reporting line; issuance of the corrected letter the Department undertook to produce in May 2025; production of the withheld records; and restoration of the functions set out in his performance agreement.
He emphasises that he makes no allegation of criminality against any individual, notes that the forensic and criminal investigations have not concluded, and states that he remains willing to place every document referred to in the letter before the relevant offices.