Access to information in South Africa

Last updated

Offering citizens access to state-held information is "one of the most effective ways of upholding the constitutional values of transparency, openness, participation and accountability." [1] Currie and De Waal suggest that accountability is unattainable if the government has a monopoly on the information that informs its actions and decisions. Access to information is not only fundamental to a properly-functioning participatory democracy, it also increases public confidence in government and enhances its legitimacy. There are also, according to Cora Hoexter,

Contents

many other benefits to be had. For instance, access to information discourages corruption, arbitrariness and other improper governmental conduct. It facilitates the protection of rights, something that is easily demonstrated in the area of administrative justice. Like reasons for administrative action, access to state-held information can be of enormous assistance to a person who suspects that her rights to administrative justice have been infringed and is in the process of building a case. [2]

Constitutional right

Before the enactment of the interim Constitution there was no general right of access to information in South Africa. Considerable resources were directed instead towards maintaining secrecy in government. Many statutes contained provisions making it a criminal offence for officials to release information. The inclusion of a right of access to information in state hands was therefore "an innovation of great significance" [3] in the interim Constitution. Section 23 conferred on every person "the right of access to all information held by the state or any of its organs at any level of government in so far as such information is required for the exercise or protection of any of his or her rights." In one of the earliest cases to deal with the right Jones J acknowledged its importance in these terms:

The purpose of s 23 is to exclude the perpetuation of the old system of administration, a system in which it was possible for government to escape accountability by refusing to disclose information even if it had bearing upon the exercise or protection ofrights of the individual. This is the mischief it is designed to prevent [....] Demonstrable fairness and openness promotes public confidence in the administration of public affairs generally. This confidence is one of the characteristics of the democratically governed society for which the Constitution strives.

The right was soon being relied upon in various contexts, and a body of case law on section 23 developed rapidly. In particular, a number of cases were brought by accused persons who sought access to information contained in police dockets.

Today section 32(1) of the Constitution confers on "everyone" a right of access to "(a) any information held by the state; and (b) any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights." Significantly, the first part of the right is far broader than was section 23 of the interim Constitution: The information no longer has to be required for the exercise or protection of rights.

Section 32(1)(b) represents yet more innovation, as there was nothing to mirror it in section 23. The focus in this part of the right is not on governmental accountability but on a person’s need for access to and control over information concerning himself. Such information will typically consist of medical or banking records, or the information in the personnel files of the person’s employer. This aspect is closely related to the right to privacy. As Klaaren and Penfold indicate, having access to information about oneself can considerably enhance one's ability to protect rights such as privacy and equality. In addition, the ability to acquire knowledge about oneself is an aspect of "self-actualization." Section 32(1)(b) is also significant as "a guarantee that records passing into private hands as a result of privatisation processes will not be immune from access." [4]

Section 32(2) required the enactment of national legislation to give effect to the right in section 32(1), and expressly allowed for "reasonable measures to alleviate the administrative and financial burden on the state." The operation of s 32(1) was suspended pending the enactment of the legislation. In the interim, as with the rights to administrative justice, section 32(1) was to be read as if it were section 23 of the interim Constitution. During this period, then, it was not possible to assert the right to information held by "another person."

Promotion of Access to Information Act

The Promotion of Access to Information Act [5] (PAIA) was enacted in response to the constitutional mandate, and came into force in large part in March 2001. Its preamble acknowledges the "secretive and unresponsive culture" of the pre-democratic era, and asserts that one object of PAIA is to "foster a culture of transparency and accountability in public and private bodies." In accordance with section 32, the Act provides for access to information held both by public and private entities. Though privacy features in the Act as a ground on which access may be refused, PAIA is "not a typical privacy or data protection statute such as may be found in many other jurisdictions." [4] Its emphasis falls on facilitating access to information rather than protecting privacy.

PAIA does not replace the constitutional right. Because, however, it purports to "give effect to" it, parties must generally assert the right via the Act. Thus the constitutional right is for the most part confined to the indirect role of informing the interpretation of the Act. It is possible to rely directly on section 32 only in exceptional cases, most obviously when the validity of the provisions of PAIA itself is being challenged. For example, it could be argued that the controversial blanket exemption of Cabinet records from the ambit of PAIA—"This Act does not apply to a record of [...] the Cabinet and its committees" [6] —is "an unconstitutional restriction of the scope of the right of access to 'information held by the state.'" [7] Since the Cabinet is clearly part of "the state," the exemption is a limitation of the right. Its validity would have to be decided by reference to the limitation clause in the Constitution.

Apart from general limitation of this kind, there is also a special limitation clause to consider. Section 32(2) permits the national legislation that gives effect to the constitutional right to "provide for reasonable measures to alleviate the administrative and financial burden on the state." This language "seems not to serve the function of demarcation but actually to grant the legislature additional scope to limit the right of access to information." [7] However, this scope is granted only to the extent that particular provisions of PAIA are designed to "alleviate the administrative and financial burden on the state." The provision relating to fees "would surely qualify," but the Cabinet exemption "arguably would not," [7] and would thus not be justified by the special limitation.

PAIA is applicable to a "record" any recorded information, regardless of form or medium, of a public body or private body, regardless of when the record came into existence. However, to keep the rules of discovery intact, the Act does not apply to records requested for the purpose of litigation where the request was made after the commencement of criminal or civil proceedings and access to the record "is provided for in any other law."

Access to state-held information

Access to records of public bodies is governed by Part 2 of the Act. A public body is defined in section 1 to include all departments of state or administration at the national, provincial and local levels, as well as any other functionary or institution acting in terms of a constitution or "exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of any legislation." However, in terms of section 12, the Act does not apply to a record of the Cabinet and its committees. Other exempted records are those relating to

Requests for information are directed to the information officer of a public body. The information officer considers the request and notifies third parties where necessary. Section 11 states that a requester "must" be given access to a record of a public body if the procedural requirements of the Act have been met, and "if access is not refused in terms of any ground for refusal." Unlike the position under the interim Constitution, there is no need for the requester to show that the information is in any way necessary for the exercise or protection of rights. For the most part, the public body will have to release the information if it relates to the requester. Limited provision is also made for the voluntary disclosure of information.

The claim that free access to official information is a prerequisite for public accountability and an essential feature of participatory democracy "must be balanced against the legitimate need for secrecy in matters relating to defence, international relations and where information is personal or is held in confidence." [7] Chapter 4 of the PAIA lists a number of grounds on which access to requested information must or may be refused unless a public interest "override" applies. Some of the mandatory grounds protect the privacy of natural persons, records held by the South African Revenue Service, records privileged from production in legal proceedings and commercial information held by a third party. The latter covers trade secrets and other financial, commercial, scientific or technical information. Under section 23 of the interim Constitution, organs of state could be and were required to disclose tender documents to allow a competitor to determine whether its rights to just administrative action had been violated. Under PAIA, however, the state would be entitled to refuse a request for these records if they contained confidential commercial information.

In terms of PAIA, access to information must be refused if its disclosure "could reasonably be expected to endanger" the safety of an individual, and may be refused if its disclosure would be likely to impair the security of a building, a computer system, a means of transport or any system for protecting the public. Access may be refused to information that will reveal methods of investigating or prosecuting crime, or might otherwise prejudice a criminal investigation or prosecution. Information relating to the defence, security and international relations of the Republic need not be disclosed. Requests for information may be refused if disclosure is likely "materially" to jeopardise the financial welfare of the Republic or the ability of the government to manage the economy. A request may be refused where the record contains an opinion or report whose disclosure "could reasonably be expected to frustrate the deliberative process in a public body or between public bodies." Requests that are "manifestly frivolous or vexatious" may also be refused.

Under section 81(3) of PAIA, the refusing party has to justify any refusal of access. This evidential burden was not discharged in President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v M & G Media Ltd , [8] which concerned a report by two senior judges who were asked by the President to visit Zimbabwe shortly before its presidential election in 2002. "Surprisingly," [9] instead of confirming an order to release the report, a majority of the Constitutional Court resorted to section 80 of the Act and remitted the matter to the High Court for it to examine the report in secret and make a determination.

Access to information in private hands

Part 3 of PAIA gives effect to the right in section 32(1)(b) of the Constitution by providing in section 50 that a requester "must be given access to any record of a private body" if

The requirement relating to the protection of rights applied generally under the interim Constitution but is now confined to information held in private hands. "Appropriately enough," [9] private bodies are thus subjected to a less stringent standard of transparency than public bodies: "The private sector, in other words, is entitled to keep its information to itself, unless that information is needed to protect rights." [10] However, the private nature of a body is not the decisive factor. Section 8(1) of PAIA recognises that a body may be "public" or "private" for the purposes of the Act depending on whether the record in question "relates to the exercise of a power or the performance of a function as a public body or as a private body." For instance, in IDASA v ANC , where the applicants sought access to the donation records of certain political parties, the latter were judged to be private bodies in relation to those records.

"Significantly," [9] a "requester" is defined to include "a public body or an official thereof," meaning that the state is entitled to access information in private hands. This innovation, "rather controversial," [9] was "clearly not required" [9] by the terms of section 32 of the Constitution, but the objects of the Act listed in section 9 "offer a justification for it." [9] Section 9(c) indicates that the purpose of the mechanism is "to give effect to the constitutional obligations of the State of promoting a human rights culture and social justice."

A private body is defined in section 1 of the Act to cover business entities, juristic persons and natural persons in their business or professional capacities. Typical examples of private bodies contemplated by the Act are banks and credit bureaux, which keep personal information about the income, banking history and credit rating of individuals—the sort of records that easily qualify as "required for the exercise or protection of any rights" in terms of section 50(1)(a) of the Act.

There has been considerable debate in the cases as to what sort of "rights" are intended and in what sense the information must be "required" for their protection. Under the interim Constitution, at a time when the qualification applied to information held by the state and referred specifically to "his or her rights," there was a natural concern to construe "rights" as broadly as possible. Thus in Van Niekerk v Pretoria City Council Cameron J suggested that the term should be interpreted to include not only rights in the Bill of Rights but also contractual and delictual rights against the state—an approach supported by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Cape Metropolitan Council v Metro Inspection Services (Western Cape) CC .

"Required" can mean several things, ranging all the way from "essential" to merely "relevant" to the protection of rights. In Clutchco (Pty) Ltd v Davis , the court surveyed the case law before holding that "reasonably required," and not "necessity," was the proper meaning, "provided that it is understood to connote a substantial advantage or an element of need." While the test has been easily satisfied in some cases, the courts have applied it fairly rigorously in others. For instance, the test was not satisfied in Unitas Hospital v Van Wyk , where the first respondent sought a report on nursing conditions in the hospital in order to build a case of negligence against it. Brand JA characterised the request as one for pre-action discovery and held that the use of section 50 of PAIA for this purpose "must remain the exception rather than the rule." The difficulty in the IDASA case, on the other hand, was that the applicants were unable to show how the records of donations of certain political parties would assist them in exercising or protecting any of the rights on which they relied. As Griesel J saw it, they were really contending for a general principle of disclosure. They were "pointing out, in general, that this is desirable in any democracy and that it will be beneficial to openness, transparency and accountability."

Protection of State Information Bill

The Protection of State Information Bill "recalls apartheid-era legislation," the Protection of Information Act 84 of 1982, which is "perhaps not inappropriate, for the Bill poses a serious challenge to the right of access to information [...] as well as to the ‘principle of open justice’ that has been identified and developed by the Constitutional Court in a series of cases." [11] Amongst other things, the Bill confers on organs of state very wide powers to classify and withhold information on security grounds and creates broadly-defined criminal offences that carry heavy penalties. "There is widespread agreement amongst commentators that while new legislation is certainly needed to deal with sensitive information relating to national security, in its current incarnationever trust thisn the Bill is hopelessly flawed and unlikely to pass constitutional scrutiny."<ref>

See also

Related Research Articles

Freedom of information laws allow access by the general public to data held by national governments and, where applicable, by state and local governments. The emergence of freedom of information legislation was a response to increasing dissatisfaction with the secrecy surrounding government policy development and decision making. In recent years Access to Information Act has also been used. They establish a "right-to-know" legal process by which requests may be made for government-held information, to be received freely or at minimal cost, barring standard exceptions. Also variously referred to as open records, or sunshine laws, governments are typically bound by a duty to publish and promote openness. In many countries there are constitutional guarantees for the right of access to information, but these are usually unused if specific support legislation does not exist. Additionally, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 has a target to ensure public access to information and the protection of fundamental freedoms as a means to ensure accountable, inclusive and just institutions.

Constitution of Spain Principles, institutions and law of political governance in Spain

The Spanish Constitution is the democratic law that is supreme in the Kingdom of Spain. It was enacted after its approval in a constitutional referendum, and it is the culmination of the Spanish transition to democracy. The Constitution of 1978 is one of about a dozen of other historical Spanish constitutions and constitution-like documents; however, it is one of two fully democratic constitutions. It was sanctioned by King Juan Carlos I on 27 December, and published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado on 29 December, the date in which it became effective. The promulgation of the constitution marked the culmination of the Spanish transition to democracy after the death of general Francisco Franco, on 20 November 1975, who ruled over Spain as a military dictator for nearly 40 years. This led to the country undergoing a series of political, social and historical changes that transformed the Francoist regime into a democratic state.

Constitution of South Africa Supreme and fundamental law of South Africa

The Constitution of South Africa is the supreme law of the Republic of South Africa. It provides the legal foundation for the existence of the republic, it sets out the rights and duties of its citizens, and defines the structure of the Government. The current constitution, the country's fifth, was drawn up by the Parliament elected in 1994 in the South African general election, 1994. It was promulgated by President Nelson Mandela on 18 December 1996 and came into effect on 4 February 1997, replacing the Interim Constitution of 1993. The first constitution was enacted by the South Africa Act 1909, the longest-lasting to date. Since 1961, the constitutions have promulgated a republican form of government.

2004 California Proposition 59

Proposition 59 was an amendment of the Constitution of California that introduced freedom of information or "sunshine" provisions. It was proposed by the California Legislature and overwhelmingly approved by the voters in an initiative held as part of the November 2004 elections.

Freedom of Information Act 2000 United Kingdom legislation

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that creates a public "right of access" to information held by public authorities. It is the implementation of freedom of information legislation in the United Kingdom on a national level. Its application is limited in Scotland to UK Government offices geo-located in Scotland. The Act implements a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party in the 1997 general election, developed by David Clark as a 1997 White Paper. The final version of the Act is believed to have been diluted from that proposed while Labour was in opposition. The full provisions of the act came into force on 1 January 2005.

Right to Information (RTI) is an act of the Parliament of India which sets out the rules and procedures regarding citizens' right to information. It replaced the former Freedom of Information Act, 2002. Under the provisions of RTI Act, any citizen of India may request information from a "public authority" which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. In case of matter involving a petitioner's life and liberty, the information has to be provided within 48 hours. The Act also requires every public authority to computerize their records for wide dissemination and to proactively publish certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally.

Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa

Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa contains the Bill of Rights, a human rights charter that protects the civil, political and socio-economic rights of all people in South Africa. The rights in the Bill apply to all law, including the common law, and bind all branches of the government, including the national executive, Parliament, the judiciary, provincial governments and municipal councils. Some provisions, such as those prohibiting unfair discrimination, also apply to the actions of private persons.

The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 is a comprehensive South African anti-discrimination law. It prohibits unfair discrimination by the government and by private organisations and individuals and forbids hate speech and harassment. The act specifically lists race, gender, sex, pregnancy, family responsibility or status, marital status, ethnic or social origin, HIV/AIDS status, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth as "prohibited grounds" for discrimination, but also contains criteria that courts may apply to determine which other characteristics are prohibited grounds. Employment discrimination is excluded from the ambit of the act because it is addressed by the Employment Equity Act, 1998. The act establishes the divisions of the High Court and designated Magistrates' Courts as "Equality Courts" to hear complaints of discrimination, hate speech and harassment.

The Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 is a freedom of information law in South Africa. It gives the constitutional right of access to any information held by the State and any information held by private bodies that is required for the exercise and protection of any rights.

South African administrative law is the branch of public law in that country which regulates the legal relations of public authorities, whether with private individuals and organisations or with other public authorities, or better say, in present-day South Africa, which regulates "the activities of bodies that exercise public powers or perform public functions, irrespective of whether those bodies are public authorities in a strict sense." According to the Constitutional Court, administrative law is "an incident of the separation of powers under which the courts regulate and control the exercise of public power by the other branches of government."

Institute for Democracy in South Africa v African National Congress is an important case in South African administrative and constitutional law, concerning the right of access to information. The applicants sought access to the donation records of certain political parties, but the latter were judged to be private bodies in relation to those records. Section 8(1) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) recognises that a body may be "public" or "private" for the purposes of the Act depending on whether the record in question "relates to the exercise of a power or the performance of a function as a public body or as a private body."

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) is an important piece of South African legislation, and the cornerstone of administrative law in South Africa.

A century ago, in Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co v Johannesburg Town Council, Innes CJ distinguished only three types of judicial review in the South African system:

  1. review of the decisions of inferior courts;
  2. the common-law review of decisions of administrative authorities; and
  3. a "wider" form of statutory review.

Constitutional litigation in South Africa is an area of the law in that country dealing with the rules and principles applicable to cases that involve constitutional matters. It examines the constitutional jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, and considers the various rules peculiar to these courts that are relevant to constitutional litigation, such as the admission of an amicus curiae, the duty to raise a constitutional matter as early as possible in the proceedings, and the duty to join the relevant organ of state in a case involving a constitutional issue.

Access to public information and freedom of information (FOI) refer to the right of access to information held by public bodies also known as "right to know". Access to public information is considered of fundamental importance for the effective functioning of democratic systems, as it enhances governments' and public officials' accountability, boosting people participation and allowing their informed participation into public life. The fundamental premise of the right of access to public information is that the information held by governmental institutions is in principle public and may be concealed only on the basis of legitimate reasons which should be detailed in the law.

Access to public information and freedom of information (FOI) refer to the right of access to information held by public bodies also known as "right to know". Access to public information is considered of fundamental importance for the effective functioning of democratic systems, as it enhances governments' and public officials' accountability, boosting people participation and allowing their informed participation into public life. The fundamental premise of the right of access to public information is that the information held by governmental institutions is in principle public and may be concealed only on the basis of legitimate reasons which should be detailed in the law.

Access to public information and freedom of information (FOI) refer to the right of access to information held by public bodies also known as "right to know". Access to public information is considered of fundamental importance for the effective functioning of democratic systems, as it enhances governments' and public officials' accountability, boosting people participation and allowing their informed participation into public life. The fundamental premise of the right of access to public information is that the information held by governmental institutions is in principle public and may be concealed only on the basis of legitimate reasons which should be detailed in the law.

Access to public information and freedom of information (FOI) refer to the right of access to information held by public bodies also known as "right to know". Access to public information is considered of fundamental importance for the effective functioning of democratic systems, as it enhances governments' and public officials' accountability, boosting people participation and allowing their informed participation into public life. The fundamental premise of the right of access to public information is that the information held by governmental institutions is in principle public and may be concealed only on the basis of legitimate reasons which should be detailed in the law.

South African History Archive

The South African History Archive Trust, better known as SAHA, is an independent archive dedicated to documenting, supporting and promoting greater awareness of past and contemporary struggles for justice through archival practice, outreach, and the utilisation of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (PAIA). SAHA was founded in the 1980s as increasing state censorship in South Africa threatened to obscure the struggle against human rights violations and the oppressive political regime of apartheid. Since 2012 SAHA has been based at the Women's Gaol Museum, Constitution Hill where it took over responsibility for archiving the Constitution Hill Trust records in addition to its original collection.

Biowatch South Africa

Biowatch South Africa is a non-profit, environmental justice NGO which aims to achieve food sovereignty and food justice for smallholder farmers. Biowatch researches, monitors, and publicizes issues around GMOs, as well as promotes biological diversity, biosafety, food sovereignty, and social justice. Biowatch formed in 1997 and was officially established in 1999. The organization works with community members and the government to ensure the protection of farmer's rights, as well as the continuation of sustainable and ethical food production systems. Biowatch encourages the advance of agroecological practices, hoping to advance farmers abilities and freedom while simultaneously protecting the environment.

References

Notes

  1. ↑ Hoexter Administrative Law 94.
  2. ↑ Hoexter Administrative Law 94-95.
  3. ↑ Hoexter Administrative Law 95.
  4. 1 2 Hoexter Administrative Law 96.
  5. ↑ Act 2 of 2000.
  6. ↑ s 12(a).
  7. 1 2 3 4 Hoexter Administrative Law 97.
  8. ↑ 2011 (2) SA 1 (SCA).
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hoexter Administrative Law 100.
  10. ↑ Currie & De Waal 695.
  11. ↑ Hoexter Administrative Law 102.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.