It is becoming increasingly frequent to read on social media platforms individuals working in government institutions revealing information to the public. Many do this in the name of whistleblowing or bringing out what the authorities don’t want the public to know.
It is however worth saying that in any government system around the world, there is a thin line between whistleblowing and what could only be referred to as sabotage. It is essential to know the distinction for a healthy public administration.
To begin with, a whistleblower exposes wrongdoing to protect the public interest. He or she does this if and when all avenues of redress have been exhausted. In other words, he or she would have already knocked on all doors and couldn’t resolve the particular problem.
A saboteur on the other hand disrupts operations to advance a personal or political agenda. Both involve internal dissent, but their motives, methods, and consequences differ in critical ways. The folks who frequently leak information – whether true or false – need to consider this distinction carefully before they harm the country in their efforts to harm the government.
It is true that a whistleblower acts out of a sense of duty. When they witness corruption, abuse of power, or misuse of public resources, they raise the alarm through appropriate channels. Their goal is corrective action, transparency, and accountability.
Although their revelations may embarrass institutions or powerful individuals, whistleblowers aim to strengthen governance by ensuring that public offices operate with integrity. That is why they should always be encouraged and protected.
A saboteur, however, only seeks to undermine processes or individuals for self-serving reasons. Their actions are designed to create failure, confusion, or public mistrust. Sabotage may involve leaking sensitive information selectively to damage reputations, deliberately slowing down productive work, or manipulating internal systems so that they malfunction. The intent is not reform but disruption.
The subtle difference lies in intention and impact. While both challenge the status quo, one seeks improvement, the other seeks decay. In many governments, unfortunately, whistleblowers are often labelled as saboteurs to silence them.
This has enabled some saboteurs to disguise their actions as whistleblowers in order to create a hostile environment where genuine concerns are buried, and misconduct flourishes unchecked. At the same time, real saboteurs may hide behind the language of exposing corruption to justify harmful activities.
For effective governance, institutions must learn to differentiate between the two. Creating safe channels for reporting wrongdoing, protecting whistleblowers from retaliation, and enforcing strict penalties for intentional sabotage are essential steps. When the distinction is understood and respected, governments can protect both the integrity of the state and the rights of those who speak truth to power.
This is urgently needed in The Gambia now.
