“I could get killed”, Mary De Haas’s refusal to name sources roils Parliament
Professor Mary de Haas refused to disclose confidential sources to Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee.
De Haas, who has monitored political violence in KwaZulu-Natal for decades, warned she would rather withdraw from proceedings than betray her sources.
De Haas testified that multiple individuals had reported serious allegations against members of the PKTT, including warrantless searches, the confiscation of cellphones without court orders, and harassment of community members.
However, when pressed for the identities of those who provided the information, she drew a firm line.
“I live in a very violent province. I could get killed,” she said, adding that breaching confidentiality would compromise both her safety and professional ethics. She argued that investigators from the Madlanga Commission were better placed to handle such sensitive disclosures.
Her refusal triggered heated exchanges. MK Party MP Sibonelo Nomvalo accused her of undermining Parliament’s authority, saying she could not “pick and choose” what to reveal. EFF MP Leigh-Ann Mathys echoed the frustration, arguing that the committee could not act on allegations without knowing the sources behind them.
Attempts at compromise including a proposal for a closed, in-camera submission were rejected by De Haas. She did, however, receive support from DA MP Glennys Breytenbach, who argued that forcing her to name sources would destroy her ability to continue monitoring political violence.
De Haas’s stance reflects her history of advocacy in a high-risk environment. She has previously accused Police Minister Bheki Cele of endangering her safety and has been an outspoken supporter of whistleblowers facing intimidation.
The clash has sharpened debate about how parliamentary oversight can function in cases involving vulnerable informants. With the committee set to continue its work, questions remain over whether accountability and source protection can coexist in the inquiry’s next steps.