Bibliographie sélective OHADA

The position of the whistle-blower is known to be a precarious one, with the whistle-blower often either regarded as a hero or a reprehensible traitor. Various pieces of legislation have attempted to remedy their precarious position, especially within the employment relationship, and in which the whistle-blower more often than not has the most to lose. The study at hand has the specific objective of comparing the position of the whistle-blower in terms of South African Law, against 16 specific measurables, and in comparison with the position of the whistle-blower in New Zealand, Australia (Victoria) and the United Kingdom. In the main, the protection offered to the whistle-blower within the South African context, is embodied within the Protected Disclosure Act 26 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “PDA”).In examining the protection afforded to the whistle-blower in South Africa, it is concluded that the framework involved extends much further than just the mere provisions in the PDA. However, there are admitted challenges in respect of this framework as discussed, both legislative and non-legislative, especially in respect of duties of disclosures placed on persons in circumstances in which concurrent protection is not afforded to the whistle-blower. With reference to the comparison in respect of the measurement parameters set, it was found that the PIDA (UK) meets the least amount of the measurements set, with the PDA A (Australia, Victoria) meeting the most of the measurements; the PDA NZ is equally balanced in meeting and not meeting the measurements and the PDA meeting less of the measurements than not, but still meeting more than the PIDA. It was found that had it not been for the catch-all provision contained in section 4 (1) (b) of the PDA, the PDA would have ranked last.