The Northern Cape High Court has dismissed an urgent application by a man who accused the South African Police Service (SAPS) of endangering his life by leaking his personal details on social media.
The applicant, known as Mr KM, had sought urgent relief against the minister of police, the national commissioner of SAPS, the Kuruman station commander and the Independent Police Investigative Directorate.
KM alleged that following his co-operation with police as the sole eyewitness to a murder in Kuruman on 1 June, his confidential details were unlawfully leaked, placing him in danger.
Among other things, KM requested the court to compel the state to pay him R2 million for relocation and living expenses, arguing that he no longer felt safe under state protection and had no trust in the Witness Protection Programme.
He also demanded to communicate with police only via secure online platforms, such as Teams or Zoom.
The applicant claimed that a confidential police communication containing his name and address surfaced on his family’s WhatsApp group and subsequently spread across social media platforms. He accused the police of failing to protect his information and of not investigating the leak, which he said had traumatised him and forced him to relocate.
In response, the police denied leaking the information and questioned the urgency of the application. Colonel Jeffrey Kanakang, who led the SAPS investigation, maintained that KM had declined an offer for witness protection and that his fears were exaggerated.
While the court acknowledged the seriousness of the applicant’s concerns and criticised SAPS for failing to properly investigate the internal leak, it ruled that KM had not presented a sufficient legal basis for the extraordinary financial relief he sought.
The court also found that KM’s mistrust of the Witness Protection Programme was misdirected, noting that the programme is run by the National Prosecuting Authority, not the police.
“The police have, in my view, failed in their duty to serve and protect the applicant,” the judge said. However, he concluded that KM had access to statutory remedies – such as the Witness Protection Programme – outside of SAPS control and that his application for independent financial support lacked merit.
The court ruled that each side should bear its own legal costs, recognising that the application was brought by a layperson “who has been failed by SAPS”.
Share