A South African Civil Aviation Authority inspector has been dismissed after making what he says was a protected disclosure about the fatal crash of the regulator’s own aircraft.
Jeremiah Visser, an airworthiness inspector and former air-crash investigator, was suspended shortly after submitting his concerns through SACAA’s internal whistle-blowing system in March 2026.
He was later dismissed following an internal disciplinary process.
Visser believes his disclosure raised important unresolved questions about the January 2020 crash of ZS-CAR, a Cessna Citation S550 owned and operated by SACAA for airport-calibration work.
Three SACAA employees died when the aircraft struck mountainous terrain near George in the Western Cape: Captain Thabiso Tolo, First Officer Tebogo Lekalakala and Flight Inspector Gugu Comfort Mnguni.
Visser’s dismissal has intensified a long-running dispute over the crash investigation, the regulator’s handling of information and the rights and responsibilities of an employee who claims to be a whistle-blower.
SACAA, however, says the dispute concerns Visser’s alleged use of information in breach of its policies and his employment obligations.
No court or tribunal finding cited in the supplied material has established that the dismissal was unlawful retaliation for whistle-blowing.
Disclosure Made Through Internal System
Visser said he submitted his disclosure using SACAA’s internal Vuvuzela whistle-blowing mechanism in March.
He regarded the submission as protected because it concerned matters he believed were relevant to aviation safety and the investigation into the fatal crash.
Visser said he had spent years raising concerns before using the internal reporting channel.
He was summoned shortly afterwards and suspended over allegations that included acting unethically and disclosing confidential information.
The regulator later subjected him to a disciplinary process that ended with his dismissal.
The timing of the suspension and dismissal forms part of Visser’s complaint, but SACAA disputes his position and says it acted over alleged breaches of internal policy and employment conditions.
The dispute may therefore turn on several questions: whether the disclosure was legally protected, whether the information was confidential or publicly available, whether Visser followed the required procedures and whether the disciplinary action was connected to legitimate misconduct allegations or his whistle-blowing activity.
Those questions have not been finally determined in the information available.
Fatal Crash Near George
The ZS-CAR crash happened on January 23, 2020.
The Cessna Citation S550 was operated by SACAA’s Flight Inspection Unit and was carrying out work linked to the calibration of airport navigation systems.
The aircraft was operating near George when it crashed into mountainous terrain approximately 30 kilometres from the airport.
All three occupants died.
The loss of Tolo, Lekalakala and Mnguni left their families seeking answers about the circumstances that led to the crash.
The aircraft belonged to SACAA and was operated by the regulator, which created an unusual position because the authority also had responsibility for aviation oversight.
That potential conflict contributed to the decision to delegate the formal accident investigation to the Ethiopian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau.
The arrangement was intended to provide an investigation independent of the organisation that owned and operated the aircraft.
Families Rejected Pilot-Only Blame
SACAA’s initial findings placed the blame on pilot error.
The families of the three crew members did not accept an explanation that they believed put responsibility entirely on those who had died.
They approached then transport minister Fikile Mbalula, who asked the Ethiopian investigation bureau to conduct a separate inquiry.
The Ethiopian investigators released their report in January 2022.
The report broadly agreed that the probable cause involved a loss of control by the crew after the aircraft entered instrument meteorological conditions during a flight being conducted under visual-flight rules.
However, the report also raised concerns about the conduct of SACAA as the aircraft operator.
It identified alleged violations of aviation regulations and criticised aspects of operational oversight.
One of the issues noted was the standard of the aircraft’s flight-data recorder.
The report also recommended that responsibility for aircraft-accident investigations should be separated from the aviation authority responsible for regulatory oversight.
This meant the report did not simply end with the actions of the pilots. It also examined the systems and regulatory environment surrounding the flight.
SACAA Challenged Ethiopian Findings
SACAA did not accept all aspects of the Ethiopian report.
After the final report was released, the regulator said it contained information and findings that differed materially from an earlier draft shared with affected parties.
SACAA also alleged that the report contained errors and inaccurate references to South African civil-aviation regulations.
Its position was that the regulator and operator were not given a proper opportunity to respond to the changed findings before publication.
The dispute over the report added another layer to an already sensitive case.
On one side were the Ethiopian investigators’ findings about the crew’s loss of control and shortcomings involving the operator.
On the other was SACAA’s objection that parts of the final report were inaccurate and had not been handled through a fair consultation process.
The disagreement has remained important because it affects how responsibility for the crash is understood by the regulator, the families and aviation professionals.
Visser Says Concerns Were Ignored
Advocate Anna-Lize Lourens, who represented Visser, said he had raised concerns about discrepancies in the ZS-CAR investigation since 2021.
One of the issues he raised was a possible near-mid-air collision involving another aircraft or helicopter.
That allegation has not been established as a cause of the crash.
It remains a concern advanced by Visser and would require evidence before it could alter the official explanation of the accident.
Visser said his attempts to have the issue addressed internally were unsuccessful.
After making the disclosure, he also approached the office of Transport Minister Barbara Creecy, the Public Protector and Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Transport.
These steps suggest that he was trying to place his concerns before several oversight institutions.
However, the fact that complaints were submitted does not mean that the claims contained in them have been proven.
The relevant authorities would need to assess the evidence and determine whether further investigation is required.
Manuscript Sparks Court Battle
Visser wrote a manuscript about the crash and the investigations that followed.
SACAA launched an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria seeking to stop him from publishing or sharing it.
Lourens said the court struck the urgent application from the roll with costs.
The outcome meant that SACAA did not obtain the urgent order it had sought at that stage.
It did not, however, amount to a final court ruling that every statement in the manuscript was correct or that Visser had an unrestricted right to publish confidential material.
A matter struck from the roll can involve procedural or urgency issues rather than a final determination of the underlying dispute.
The status of any substantive application therefore remains important.
Visser said his termination letter was sent on the same day his attorneys demanded clarity on whether SACAA intended to return the substantive matter to court.
The timing may become relevant if the dismissal is challenged, but it does not by itself prove why SACAA ended his employment.
SACAA Defends Its Position
SACAA spokesperson Sisa Majola said the regulator was not, at that stage, focused on confirming whether every piece of information in Visser’s manuscript was correct.
“The SACAA has no obligation to confirm the correctness or incorrectness of the information in the manuscript,” Majola said.
The regulator’s concern was that Visser allegedly used information obtained irregularly or contrary to internal policies and the conditions of his employment.
SACAA maintained that some of the information was proprietary and should not be used by an employee for a personal agenda or gain.
“It is even worse when that information is the proprietary information of the SACAA which is protected and must not be used for any personal agendas and personal gain by any SACAA employee,” Majola said.
SACAA’s position places the focus on how Visser obtained and used the information rather than only on whether his analysis was correct.
The regulator appears to argue that an employee’s obligations continue to apply even when that person believes the information exposes safety or governance concerns.
Whether that argument is valid in this case depends on the facts, internal policies and legal protection applicable to the disclosure.
Visser Rejects Confidentiality Claim
Visser disputed SACAA’s account.
He said the material used to prepare the manuscript and the later disclosure came from publicly available sources.
According to him, what differed was his analysis of that information.
His attorney, Emile Myburgh, also rejected the regulator’s proprietary-information argument.
“Their confidentiality requirement is just to keep their dirty laundry secret,” Myburgh said.
Myburgh described SACAA’s court application as baseless and said Visser had honoured his confidentiality obligations and had not given the manuscript to unauthorised parties.
Visser also disputed the suggestion that the manuscript was written without the knowledge of senior officials.
He said he had discussed his intention to write it with a senior SACAA staff member in 2021.
These claims are contested by the regulator and have not been finally tested in court.
The dispute is therefore not simply about the technical causes of an aircraft crash.
It also concerns ownership of information, employee confidentiality, whistle-blower protection and the public interest in aviation safety.
What Is A Protected Disclosure?
A protected disclosure is generally information reported by an employee about suspected wrongdoing through a recognised channel and in circumstances covered by the law.
The classification can be important because an employer may not subject an employee to an occupational disadvantage merely for making a disclosure that qualifies for protection.
But not every workplace complaint automatically becomes a protected disclosure.
The content of the report, the employee’s belief, the procedure followed, the person or institution to whom it was made and the surrounding circumstances may all be relevant.
Visser says his Vuvuzela submission met the requirements and should have protected him.
SACAA’s disciplinary case appears to be that his conduct involved breaches separate from the act of reporting concerns.
If the dispute proceeds to a labour forum or court, the decision-maker may need to examine the true reason for the suspension and dismissal.
It may also need to determine whether the information was obtained legitimately and whether SACAA’s confidentiality rules were applied lawfully.
No such final determination is contained in the supplied material.
Conflict At The Heart Of The Crash Probe
The ZS-CAR accident exposed a difficult institutional problem.
SACAA was responsible for aviation regulation, but it also owned and operated the aircraft that crashed.
An accident investigation must examine the conduct of pilots, operators, maintenance systems, management and regulators where relevant.
When one organisation occupies several of those roles, public confidence may be affected even if investigators act professionally.
Delegating the investigation to Ethiopia was intended to address that concern.
The Ethiopian report’s recommendation that accident investigation should be separated from aviation oversight underlined the importance of structural independence.
The report did not remove pilot conduct from the probable cause.
It added operator and regulatory issues that the families believed also deserved attention.
SACAA’s objection to parts of that report shows that the institutional disagreement did not end with its publication.
Visser’s disclosure and manuscript have now brought the old dispute back into public focus.
Families Still Carry The Loss
The technical and legal arguments should not obscure the deaths of the three SACAA employees.
Captain Thabiso Tolo, First Officer Tebogo Lekalakala and Flight Inspector Gugu Comfort Mnguni were killed while performing aviation work for the regulator.
Their families challenged an explanation that they believed blamed the flight crew without adequately examining the operator’s responsibility.
The Ethiopian investigation provided a broader assessment but also triggered objections from SACAA.
Years later, the crash continues to generate disagreement about what went wrong and whether all relevant evidence was considered.
The families’ interest is not only in assigning blame.
It is also in understanding the chain of events and ensuring that lessons are applied to prevent another accident.
Any renewed investigation or review should remain evidence-based and avoid unsupported accusations against the deceased crew or other individuals.
Questions About Aviation Oversight
The controversy raises broader questions about aviation safety and accountability.
An effective accident investigation should identify the immediate causes of a crash as well as organisational and systemic factors.
It must also be independent enough for families, aviation professionals and the public to trust its findings.
Whistle-blowers can play an important role when they raise genuine safety concerns, but they also remain bound by laws and legitimate rules governing confidential information.
Employers, in turn, must be able to enforce reasonable policies without using those policies to silence protected disclosures.
The Visser dispute sits at the point where those principles meet.
SACAA says he breached its policies and employment obligations.
Visser says he used public information to raise concerns in the public interest and was then punished.
The competing claims require proper legal and factual examination.
What Happens Next?
Visser may challenge his dismissal through labour or court processes, although the supplied report does not confirm which formal step he will take.
SACAA may also decide whether to revive or pursue its substantive application relating to the manuscript.
His complaints to the Transport Minister’s office, the Public Protector and Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Transport could lead to requests for information or further oversight.
None of those possibilities guarantees that the crash investigation will be reopened.
The regulator and other authorities would need to decide whether Visser’s evidence raises new and credible issues that were not adequately considered before.
For now, several facts are clear.
Three SACAA employees died in the 2020 ZS-CAR crash near George.
An Ethiopian investigation identified pilot loss of control as the probable cause while also raising concerns about the operator and recommending greater independence in accident investigations.
SACAA disputed parts of that report.
Visser says he raised further concerns through an internal whistle-blowing mechanism, was suspended and later dismissed.
SACAA says the dispute concerns alleged policy breaches and improper use of information.
The High Court struck the regulator’s urgent publication application from the roll with costs, but the broader legal and employment disputes remain unresolved.
