A whistleblower has accused the Durban University of Technology (DUT) for risking whistleblowers’ lives by demanding that they physically provide evidence or risk having the investigation dropped.
This was after the whistleblower asked the university to investigate Kabulo Loji, a lecturer at DUT, for allegedly falsifying “fraudulent conference invitations” to defraud the institution and fund his trips to Burundi.
In a letter addressed to the University dated December 28, 2023, the whistleblower said: “What he does is type the letters of invitation himself. He then cleverly chooses a paper, which, when you search, you indeed find exists, and where he was a co-author. But then the same papers had already been presented in India and elsewhere.”
On December 29, the whistleblowers team responded to the letter, indicating that whistleblowers had the responsibility to protect the identity of the whistleblower when matters were raised through whistleblowers.
“We cannot be liable for instances in which a whistleblower has disclosed their identity or the information which they wish to report to a third party. Whistleblowers will forward the information received to the relevant parties at the institution, removing any information that may identify the whistleblower, ensuring that we have taken every care to maintain the whistleblower’s anonymity,” read the fraud hotline organisation.
It added that it could not be held liable for the whistleblower’s identity should it potentially be exposed as a result of them having identified themselves to a third party.
However, DUT’s Risk Office representative Kuliswa Mda responded on January 9 this year, asking for the email address of the whistleblower to speak to someone from the office.
On January 4, Mda wrote an email asking the whistleblower to call or email the risk office to set up a virtual meeting.
“Please advise the whistleblower to use their private email and Teams to keep their anonymity. We will also ensure that we do not divulge their identity. Kindly provide the date and time you will be making contact, for us to update Kuliswa when to await communication,” read Mda’s email.
The whistleblower told the Sunday Independent that he feared being targeted as there was no guarantee that his identity would be kept anonymous.
On April 27, he responded to Mda, asking if the university would not investigate the allegations simply because he did not wish to disclose his identity.
“So with all the evidence that the institution was defrauded, the allegations will not be investigated and the guilty party not held to account just because I cannot disclose my identity. Is that all your office is interested in? Knowing the identity of the whistleblower & not the facts? Shocking!” he responded to DUT.
According to the email records, Mda’s response to the whistleblower was that the reason they wanted the identity of the whistleblower was to pose the right questions that would lead them to the evidence required.
“We are also mindful of DUT’s reputation with external stakeholders and would not want to jeopardise it. For example, how do we verify the authenticity of the invitation without jeopardising DUT’s reputation?” Mda replied.
On July 8, Mda wrote back to the whistleblower, informing him that no response was received from the whistleblower, to which the whistleblower disputed, saying he had not provided evidence.
Your office is better placed to answer this question, not the whistleblower! Unfortunately, the longer you take, the more the university's reputation will get damaged because this matter will fall into the hands of investigative journalists. I don't have solutions to your questions,” he replied.
Contacted for comment, DUT said the matter was investigated, adding that the invitation letter that the whistleblower alleged was fabricated by the lecturer in question was verified with the issuing institution.
“They confirmed that the letter was legitimately issued in 2022. However, the lecturer attended the event once in 2023, using the same letter, which was verified as valid by the institution. It should be noted that the lecturer did not travel in 2022.
Asked whether forcing whistleblowers to provide their details would not endanger their safety, the university said that its whistleblowing policy encouraged whistleblowers to report confidentially.
“This approach facilitates the gathering of additional information necessary for conducting the investigation. When we request a whistleblower to come forward, it is strictly a request, never an instruction or requirement. The whistleblower has the right to decline, and we fully respect that choice,” said the DUT spokesperson.
However, according to the records from the risk office, the university told the whistleblower it would drop the investigation because he refused to provide his details for a Zoom meeting, which the university sought after having received evidence.
When asked why the Risk Office said to the whistleblower in the email that it was “mindful of DUT’s reputation with external stakeholders and would not want to jeopardise it”, the institution said that the statement was inaccurate and stated that it had investigated, although it did not provide the publication with the report.