LieTech Polygraph & Forensic Services

29/09/2026

Can an Employer Force an Employee to Take a Polygraph?

A New Labour Court Judgment Puts the Question Under the Spotlight
A recent South African Labour Court judgment has important implications for employers, HR practitioners, investigators — and the professional use of polygraph examinations in the workplace.
On 22 September 2026, the Labour Court in Johannesburg handed down judgment in BCE Foodservice Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Vumazonke N.O. and Others (JR1514-22). The court dismissed the employer's review application and upheld a CCMA finding that the dismissal of an employee was substantively unfair. �
LinkedIn
The case involved an employee, Steven Zwane, an IT Support Technician, who was dismissed after refusing to undergo a polygraph examination. The dispute arose in circumstances involving sick leave and the timing of a medical visit. The employer relied on a polygraph provision contained in the employee's employment contract and argued that his refusal amounted to misconduct, including insubordination. �
LinkedIn
The reported award amounted to R105,900 in compensation. �
LinkedIn
But the judgment should not be interpreted as meaning that workplace polygraph examinations are unlawful, or that an employee can simply refuse a polygraph whenever one is requested.
The important issue is why the examination is being requested and whether the employer's instruction is reasonable and properly connected to a legitimate investigation.
A polygraph clause is not a blank cheque
Many employment contracts contain provisions allowing an employer to require employees to undergo polygraph examinations in certain circumstances.
But the existence of such a clause does not necessarily mean that an employer can invoke it without regard to the circumstances of the particular case.
That principle has existed in South African labour jurisprudence for many years.
In Fidelity Cash Management Services v CCMA, the Labour Appeal Court considered an employment contract which provided that an employee could be required to undergo a polygraph examination as part of a disciplinary or investigation procedure, but that the employee should not unreasonably refuse.
The court held that the provision did not mean an employee had to undergo a polygraph every time the employer demanded one.
Where the contractual wording makes the employee's obligation dependent on the refusal being unreasonable, the employer must establish that the refusal was unreasonable in the circumstances. �
SAFLII +1
That is an important distinction.
Suspicion is not proof
Another fundamental principle is that suspicion of misconduct is not itself proof of misconduct.
An employer may quite properly have concerns about an incident and launch an investigation. A polygraph may form part of that investigation.
But the existence of suspicion does not automatically establish that an employee has committed misconduct.
In the BCE matter, the employer's position was that suspicion surrounding the circumstances justified the polygraph examination. The court nevertheless upheld the finding that the dismissal was substantively unfair. �
LinkedIn
This is where proper investigative methodology becomes particularly important.
A polygraph examination should be connected to a defined investigative issue.
It should not simply become:
"We suspect you, therefore take a polygraph."
A much more defensible approach is:
Incident → evidence → reasonable investigative basis → relevant questions → polygraph examination → assessment together with all other evidence.
The Gemalto case provides an important warning
The Labour Appeal Court dealt with a similar issue in Gemalto South Africa (Pty) Ltd v CEPPWAWU obo Louw and Others.
In that matter, employees refused to undergo polygraph examinations. Some had contractual provisions relating to polygraph testing and were subsequently dismissed.
The Labour Appeal Court accepted that failing to comply with an instruction to undergo a polygraph could constitute an act of insubordination.
But that was not the end of the enquiry.
The court still had to determine whether the dismissals were substantively fair in the circumstances. �
SAFLII
The court found that the employer's polygraph exercise had effectively become a blanket exercise, and that the employees who were ultimately disciplined had been selected because their contracts contained the relevant documentation while other employees who had similarly refused were not disciplined.
The court concluded that there was no rational connection between the reason for the disciplinary action and the purpose of the investigation.
The dismissals were therefore found to be substantively unfair. �
SAFLII
What does this mean for employers?
The lesson is not:
❌ "Don't use polygraphs."
Rather, it is:
✅ "Use them properly."
An employer considering a workplace polygraph should be able to answer some basic questions:
1. What exactly is being investigated?
There should be a clearly defined incident or issue.
2. Why is this particular employee being examined?
There should be a rational connection between the employee and the matter being investigated.
3. What is the factual basis for the investigation?
Suspicion should arise from identifiable circumstances rather than simply being assumed.
4. What is the purpose of the polygraph?
Is it being used to investigate possible knowledge, involvement, deception or another clearly defined issue?
5. Are the questions relevant?
The examination should address the matter actually under investigation.
6. Has the employee been properly informed?
The circumstances and purpose of the examination should be handled transparently and professionally.
7. Is the contractual provision actually applicable?
Employers should not assume that the mere presence of the word polygraph in a contract automatically settles the legal question.
8. What other evidence exists?
A polygraph should form part of an investigation. It should not be treated as a substitute for collecting and evaluating other evidence.
And what does this mean for polygraph examiners?
There is an important professional lesson here as well.
A competent polygraph examiner should not simply be viewed as someone who arrives at a workplace, attaches sensors to an employee and produces a report.
The examiner operates within a broader investigative and legal environment.
The reason for the examination, the formulation of the issue, the suitability of the questions, the examination process, the documentation and the interpretation of the results all matter.
An examiner should also be careful not to turn an investigative tool into a declaration of guilt.
A polygraph result is not the same thing as independently proving that an employee committed the underlying misconduct.
The investigation remains the investigation.
The polygraph is one component of that process.
The bigger lesson
The BCE judgment should therefore not be presented as a "victory against polygraphs."
It is better understood as a reminder that the use of a polygraph in the workplace must be connected to a legitimate and properly grounded investigative purpose, and that contractual provisions must be applied in accordance with labour-law principles of fairness and reasonableness.
The existing Labour Appeal Court authorities — particularly Fidelity Cash Management and Gemalto — are important in understanding this distinction. �
SAFLII +1
For employers, the message is simple:
Don't use a polygraph as a shortcut.
For employees:
A contractual polygraph clause does not necessarily mean that every demand for a test is automatically lawful and reasonable.
And for professional examiners:
The quality of the examination begins long before the subject sits in the chair.
Proper case assessment, proper question formulation, proper examination procedures and proper reporting remain essential.
LieTech Polygraph & Forensic Services
As professional forensic psychophysiologists, we believe that polygraph examinations should be conducted as part of a structured, objective and properly documented investigative process.
A polygraph is an investigative tool.
It should never replace a proper investigation.
This article is intended for general information and discussion and should not be regarded as legal advice. The BCE judgment referred to above was reported publicly on 22 September 2026; the detailed discussion of its facts above is based on the published case report/account currently available, while the principles discussed from Fidelity and Gemalto are drawn from the published Labour Appeal Court judgments. �
LinkedIn +2

11/09/2026

🚨 PUBLIC AWARENESS | CYBERCRIME CAN HAPPEN IN YOUR OWN HOME

Caregiver allegedly used an unattended cellphone and memorised PIN to transfer R2,000 from senior citizen’s bank account
A forensic investigation by LieTech Polygraph & Forensic Services has highlighted a serious cybercrime and financial-security warning for families caring for elderly relatives.
A caregiver was contacted to provide care to an elderly couple.
During the investigation, the caregiver admitted in a signed statement that she had observed the elderly man conducting a mobile banking transaction and memorised his PIN.
When his cellphone was subsequently left unattended, she allegedly used the phone and the PIN to make a R2,000 Cash Send transaction from his bank account to a spare cellphone number associated with her.
The funds were subsequently withdrawn.
This is a stark reminder that cybercrime does not necessarily involve sophisticated hackers sitting behind computers.
Sometimes the vulnerability is much closer:
A cellphone.
A PIN.
An unattended device.
And someone who has gained the victim's trust.
🔐 PROTECT YOUR ELDERLY FAMILY MEMBERS
Never allow anyone to observe your banking PIN.
Never leave a banking-enabled cellphone unattended and accessible.
Check transaction notifications and bank statements regularly.
If an unexplained transaction occurs, contact your bank immediately and report it to SAPS.
⚠️ THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES
LieTech has documented the admission and identified banking, ATM, cellphone and CCTV evidence that should be obtained to independently corroborate the circumstances.
The matter may have implications under South Africa's cybercrime and financial-crime laws, but the precise criminal offences remain for SAPS and the prosecuting authorities to determine.
This is not simply about R2,000.
It is about the vulnerability of elderly people whose financial security may depend upon the integrity of those entrusted to care for them.
**PROTECT THE PHONE.
PROTECT THE PIN.
PROTECT THE SENIOR CITIZEN.**
LieTech Polygraph & Forensic Services
In Pursuit of the Truth
Public-awareness article based on information obtained during an ongoing forensic investigation and a signed statement. The underlying electronic, banking and other evidence remains subject to independent verification. No person is declared guilty of an offence by LieTech.

30/06/2026

Truth Before Testing: Investigation Concludes with Manager's Confession

Not every workplace investigation ends with a polygraph examination. Sometimes, a thorough investigation and the weight of the evidence are enough for the truth to emerge.
In a recent investigation conducted by LieTech Polygraph & Forensic Services, several employees were initially identified for possible voluntary polygraph examinations following two separate cash-handling incidents that raised significant concerns.

As investigators analysed the documentation, interviewed those involved and identified inconsistencies, the investigation took an unexpected turn.
The manager voluntarily accepted responsibility before the scheduled polygraph examinations could proceed.

The Investigation
The investigation centred on two separate incidents involving cash deposits:

Incident 1: Cash amounting to R8,315.10 could not be accounted for after no proof of deposit or G4S collection could be established.

Incident 2: A deposit bag that had repeatedly been reported as deposited was later found still on the premises before eventually being collected by G4S several days later.
These incidents justified a comprehensive investigation and the preparation of focused polygraph examinations.

The Outcome
Before any examinations were conducted:
The manager admitted responsibility.
The bulk of the financial loss was recovered.
The manager elected to resign with immediate effect.
A request was made for the remaining outstanding losses to be deducted from salary and accrued leave pay, helping to minimise the employer's financial loss.
The remaining employees were no longer required to undergo polygraph examinations.

An Important Lesson
This case highlights an important principle often overlooked:
A polygraph examination is not a replacement for a proper investigation. It is one investigative tool that complements interviews, documentary evidence, audit trails, CCTV, access control records and forensic analysis.

A well-conducted investigation frequently leads to admissions long before formal testing becomes necessary.

The objective is never simply to administer a polygraph—it is to establish the truth, protect innocent employees, identify those responsible, and assist organisations in resolving matters fairly and professionally.

LieTech Polygraph & Forensic Services remains committed to conducting ethical, impartial and evidence-based investigations—always in pursuit of the truth.

27/06/2026

📱 SAY GOODBYE TO SIM CARDS AS YOU KNOW THEM IN SOUTH AFRICA

South Africa is gradually transitioning from traditional plastic SIM cards to eSIM technology. While this shift is primarily about convenience and innovation, it could also become an important tool in the fight against crime.
However, one uncomfortable reality cannot be ignored.
The current RICA system has significant enforcement weaknesses.
Despite legislation requiring every SIM card to be registered to its lawful user, there have been repeated reports over many years of pre-registered or improperly registered ("open") SIM cards being sold through informal channels, including at taxi ranks, street vendors and some informal retailers. Criminals have exploited these weaknesses to help conceal their identities when committing fraud, extortion, kidnappings and other serious offences.
The problem is therefore not necessarily the legislation itself—it is consistent enforcement.
If eSIM technology is introduced alongside:
stronger identity verification,
stricter compliance by mobile operators and retailers,
regular audits,
severe penalties for fraudulent SIM registrations, and
closer cooperation between the telecommunications industry and law enforcement,
South Africa could significantly reduce the abuse of anonymous mobile numbers.
Technology alone will never stop organised crime. Criminals constantly adapt. But every layer of accountability makes criminal operations more difficult and increases the chances of successful investigations and prosecutions.
As a former law enforcement officer, I have always believed that we cannot arrest our way out of crime. We must also outthink criminals by using better technology, intelligence-led policing, digital forensics and effective legislation that is properly enforced.
The move towards eSIM technology is therefore a step in the right direction.
Now Government, regulators, mobile operators and law enforcement must ensure that the mistakes of the current RICA system are not simply carried over into the next generation of mobile communications.
Technology should make life easier for honest South Africans—and considerably harder for criminals. 🇿🇦

25/06/2026

⚖️ EMPLOYING UNDOCUMENTED FOREIGN NATIONALS: WHAT EVERY EMPLOYER SHOULD KNOW

Government has intensified inspections across South Africa to identify employers who unlawfully employ undocumented foreign nationals. These inspections are being conducted jointly by the Department of Employment and Labour, the Department of Home Affairs and the SAPS.
This is not simply about immigration. It is about compliance with the law, protecting legitimate businesses, safeguarding workers from exploitation, and ensuring fair competition in the labour market.
Every employer has a legal responsibility
Before employing anyone, employers should verify that the individual is legally entitled to work in South Africa. This includes checking identity documents, passports, visas or work permits where applicable, and ensuring that these documents are valid and current.
Keeping accurate employment records is not merely good business practice—it is an important part of demonstrating compliance during inspections.
What if you discover an existing employee is undocumented?
Many employers are asking this question.
If an employer discovers that an existing employee does not have valid documentation, the answer is not to panic or dismiss the employee on the spot.
A responsible employer should:
✔️ Verify the facts and request proof of the employee's legal right to work.
✔️ Give the employee a reasonable opportunity to provide valid documentation if it exists.
✔️ Carefully document every step taken.
✔️ Follow a fair labour process before making any employment decision.
✔️ Seek professional legal advice where necessary, particularly in complex cases.
Employers should remember that labour legislation still applies. Acting unfairly can expose a business to labour disputes, while continuing to employ someone who has no legal right to work may expose the employer to enforcement action under immigration legislation.
Compliance protects everyone
Businesses that comply with the law should never be disadvantaged by those who knowingly ignore it.
Likewise, undocumented workers are often victims of exploitation—receiving below-minimum wages, working excessive hours, and having little protection because they fear reporting abuse.
Proper enforcement helps combat exploitation while protecting lawful employment opportunities.
Government also has responsibilities
Effective enforcement cannot focus only on employers.
Government must also:
Strengthen border management.
Improve the efficiency of visa and work permit processing.
Combat corruption and fraudulent documentation.
Target criminal syndicates involved in illegal immigration and labour exploitation.
Apply the law consistently and fairly to everyone.
The bigger picture
South Africa needs a labour market that is fair, lawful and competitive.
That means protecting jobs, supporting businesses that comply with the law, safeguarding vulnerable workers from exploitation, and ensuring that immigration and labour legislation are enforced consistently and without fear or favour.
The rule of law benefits everyone. Compliance is not optional—it is the foundation of a fair and sustainable economy.

09/06/2026

🇿🇦 ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, EMPLOYERS, AND LABOUR LAW: THE PART OF THE DEBATE MANY ARE MISSING 🇿🇦

President Cyril Ramaphosa's recent warning that employers who knowingly hire undocumented foreign nationals could face criminal prosecution has reignited a national debate.

For many South Africans, the issue is simple:

"If a person is in the country illegally, they should not be working."

While that may sound straightforward, the reality is far more complex because immigration law and labour law often intersect.

South African employers have a legal obligation to ensure that employees are legally entitled to work in the country. Ignoring this responsibility can expose employers to penalties, fines, and potentially criminal prosecution.

However, compliance with immigration law does not remove an employer's obligation to comply with labour law.

This is where many employers get into trouble.

An employer cannot simply discover a problem with an employee's documentation and immediately show that employee the door.

Labour law still requires fairness.

Employers should investigate the facts, verify documentation, allow the employee an opportunity to explain any discrepancies, and follow a fair process before making any decision regarding continued employment.

An employee's immigration status does not automatically remove all labour rights.

In some cases, employers have attempted to avoid labour disputes by placing pressure on employees to resign. This can create an entirely different legal problem known as constructive dismissal.

Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes continued employment so intolerable that the employee feels compelled to resign. In such cases, the employee may still approach the CCMA or a bargaining council and argue that the resignation was effectively a dismissal caused by the employer's conduct.

The safest approach for employers is therefore not panic, but process.

Employers should maintain proper records, conduct regular compliance audits, monitor visa and permit expiry dates, and ensure that all documentation remains current.

One practical solution is to make the right to work a continuing condition of employment.

Employment contracts should clearly state that continued employment is subject to the employee maintaining a valid legal right to work in South Africa and providing proof thereof when required.

Employers should maintain registers for:

✔ Work permits ✔ Visas ✔ Passports ✔ Permit expiry dates ✔ Renewal applications

This allows employers to identify potential problems before they become legal liabilities.

Where employees work under temporary visas or permits, it may also be prudent for contracts to align with the duration of the relevant authorisation. However, employers should be cautious about relying solely on automatic termination clauses and should still follow a fair process if an employee's work authorisation lapses or becomes disputed.

Employees also carry responsibilities.

Workers must ensure that their documentation remains valid, inform employers of changes to their status, cooperate with verification processes, and never submit fraudulent documentation.

The use of forged permits, false identities, or misrepresentation can expose individuals to serious criminal consequences.

Ultimately, the debate should not focus solely on undocumented workers.

The larger question is why some employers knowingly create demand for illegal labour in the first place.

If businesses knowingly employ undocumented workers because they can be paid less, dismissed more easily, or employed without labour protections, then enforcement must focus not only on the worker but also on the employer, labour brokers, document fraud syndicates, and corrupt officials who facilitate the system.

South Africa has a right to secure its borders, enforce its immigration laws, and protect employment opportunities for its citizens.

At the same time, the rule of law requires that employers act fairly, employees act honestly, and government enforce the law consistently.

The answer is not vigilantism.

The answer is lawful enforcement, responsible employers, accountable government, and fair labour practices.

Only then can immigration control and labour rights coexist in a manner that protects both South African workers and the integrity of our legal system.

04/06/2026

South Africa: Bosses Who Hire Undocumented Workers Could Soon Face Jail Not Just a Fine , more details :

South Africa: Bosses Who Hire Undocumented Workers Could Soon Face Jail Not Just a Fine, Gauteng, PretoriaSouth Africa's Labour deputy minister Jomo Sibiya announced that employers hiring undocumented workers could soon face jail time, not just fines. The proposed Employment Services Amendment Bill....

02/06/2026

🇿🇦 MADLANGA COMMISSION: THE REAL ISSUE IS BIGGER THAN ONE POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION 🇿🇦

The testimony emerging from the Madlanga Commission has sparked intense public debate.
For some, it is about Karl Sander.
For others, it is about a disputed polygraph examination.
But for many current and former police officials, investigators, intelligence practitioners, forensic specialists, and polygraph examiners, the issue is far bigger.
It is about accountability.
It is about institutional integrity.
It is about leadership.
And it is about whether South Africa is adequately supporting the specialised capabilities entrusted with protecting the rule of law.
Having been involved in the polygraph profession for many years, including both Basic and Advanced Polygraph Training, and having interacted with members of the SAPS Forensic Science Laboratory Polygraph Unit, I have witnessed both the strengths and challenges of this specialised discipline.
One fact should not be lost in the current debate:
Polygraph testing remains a valuable investigative and integrity-management tool.
For more than a century, law-enforcement agencies, intelligence services, military organisations, government institutions, and private-sector organisations around the world have continued to utilise polygraph because it contributes value when used correctly.
No professional examiner claims that polygraph is infallible.
No professional investigator should rely on it in isolation.
But neither should its value be dismissed.
Polygraph is not a crystal ball.
It is not a substitute for detective work.
It is not a shortcut to justice.
It is an investigative aid that can generate admissions, identify investigative leads, corroborate information, eliminate innocent persons from suspicion, and help focus investigative resources where they are most needed.
Polygraph is the science.
Polygraph testing is the art of applying that science.
The instrument records physiological data.
The science explains what is being measured.
The examiner applies professional interviewing skills, validated methodologies, question formulation, chart analysis, and investigative experience.
That is why examiner competence, integrity, training, and independence are so important.
Because behind every examination sits a human being.
A career.
A reputation.
A family.
And sometimes a future that may be influenced by the outcome.
The stakes are simply too high for anything less than excellence.
Unfortunately, the current debate has also exposed several uncomfortable realities that have affected specialised capabilities for years:
• Ageing equipment • Outdated software • Limited advanced training opportunities • Budget constraints • Loss of institutional knowledge • Reduced succession planning • Increasing bureaucracy and protocol restrictions
This is not a criticism of individual examiners.
Many dedicated professionals continue to perform highly specialised work under circumstances that are far from ideal.
The concern lies with the system.
How can government expect world-class results from specialised disciplines while failing to invest adequately in modern technology, training, examiner development, and quality assurance?
Technology evolves.
Research evolves.
Methodologies evolve.
Criminals evolve.
Specialised capabilities must evolve as well.
Another issue seldom discussed publicly is examiner independence.
Polygraph examinations must be conducted without fear, favour, prejudice, interference, or predetermined outcomes.
The examiner's responsibility is not to produce a desired result.
It is not to satisfy management expectations.
It is not to protect reputations.
It is to report findings honestly and professionally, regardless of where those findings may lead.
This becomes particularly important in rank-driven environments.
An examiner may be required to examine a senior officer who possesses significant authority, influence, and control over careers and resources.
In theory, rank should be irrelevant.
In practice, the reality can be far more complicated.
Integrity systems cannot function effectively if those tasked with protecting integrity fear becoming victims themselves.
This brings us back to the Karl Sander matter.
Whether one agrees with Karl Sander or not is almost beside the point.
The public is entitled to ask whether the process was fair, consistent, transparent, and beyond reproach.
Because confidence in any investigation depends not only on the outcome, but on the credibility of the process that produced that outcome.
Perhaps the greatest lesson emerging from the Madlanga Commission is this:
Institutions do not fail overnight.
They weaken gradually.
They weaken when specialist skills are neglected.
They weaken when training stagnates.
They weaken when technology becomes outdated.
They weaken when expertise is lost.
They weaken when warning signs are ignored.
And they weaken when those tasked with protecting integrity are not adequately supported.
South Africa has no shortage of talented investigators, forensic specialists, intelligence officers, polygraph examiners, and dedicated police officials.
What is needed is leadership willing to invest in those capabilities, modernise them, protect their independence, and ensure they remain fit for purpose.
The Madlanga Commission has opened a can of worms.
The real question now is whether government and police leadership have the courage to confront what is inside.
Because this conversation is no longer only about Karl Sander.
It is no longer only about one polygraph examination.
It is about the future of policing.
It is about accountability.
It is about specialised capabilities.
It is about institutional integrity.
And that conversation is long overdue.
🇿🇦 In the pursuit of truth, the tool remains valuable. The challenge is ensuring that the systems, leadership, training, equipment, technology, and support structures behind that tool remain worthy of the responsibility entrusted to them.