CORRUPTION

Interview with Professor Suelette Dreyfus
International Affairs Forum
they feel that loyalty deeply. For many of them,
their job is in fact their identity. It is how they
define themselves and their purpose in the world,
perhaps more so than in the private sector. The
wall they have to climb over in their own minds to
get to that point of disclosure is very high indeed.
This internal self-regulation is a powerful force
pulling them back. It is not just about a fear
of going to prison for revealing secrets; it is a
genuine desire to protect their organization and
its higher purpose. In fact, it is usually this deep
loyalty that drives them to speak out about the
serious wrongdoing or illegality in the first place.
Often they want to save their organization from
eroding its own integrity. The reason this element
is important is that it provides a natural barrier
of protection in its own right. It is not enough of
a protection on its own, but it is something that
should be taken into consideration in shaping
higher threshold for disclosure avenues for
whistleblowers in this sector.
For someone considering becoming a
whistleblower, what steps would you
encourage them to take, not only to protect
their claim but protect themselves as well?
Whistleblowers need to make a personal
judgement between their conscience, their
ethical situation and the often terrible disrespect
and mistreatment most will still face even today
as they go through the process. I would suggest:
• Find a lawyer who specializes in whistleblower
cases and knows the local laws in this area.
It is not enough to just find a criminal lawyer.
Get generic advice in the first instance on
a “hypotheticals” basis without disclosing
too much of the specific case until you are
confident in the lawyer’s knowledge and
integrity.
• Get documentary evidence of the wrongdoing
—gather it carefully, methodically over time. Be
patient. No matter how you choose to blow the
whistle, this evidence is crucial.
• Do not assume that regulators will behave
well. In one case, a whistleblower made a
disclosure to a regulator in the UK—and
the regulator turned around and told the
whistleblower’s company the name of the
whistleblower what they had disclosed. It was
astonishing really. But that is the reality of
intertwined power structures. Be prepared to
run up against that.
• Do not be afraid to use the media. Sometimes
the media provides as good or better
protection than lawyers on their own. One
whistleblower I interviewed said they were
only alive today because they hit the media.
The high visibility provided a deterrent to the
corrupt officials in the law enforcement/military/
intelligence organization actually attempting
to harm the whistleblower. A previous
whistleblower in the organization had been
shot and had to go into hiding. In this instance,
the corruption was subsequently proven to
have gone straight to the top. It really was a
cancer in the institution.
• If the “going public” route is not the right
option, then anonymized information delivered
to a trusted journalist, NGO, union, or
elected official can also be a way to fix the
wrongdoing. In some ways, this is the best
way, because a journalist cannot be forced
to reveal what he or she does not know.
However, it will be important in this situation to
explain the context of the information. Highly
detailed original documents can make sense
to a specialist deep in a field, but be utter
gibberish to a general news reporter. When
I worked as a staff reporter on a major daily
46