My Vote Counts v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Last updated

My Vote Counts v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameMy Vote Counts NPC v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another
Decided21 June 2018 (2018-06-21)
Docket nos.CCT 249/17
Citation(s) [2018] ZACC 17; 2018 (8) BCLR 893 (CC); 2018 (5) SA 380 (CC)
Case history
Prior action(s)My Vote Counts v President [2017] ZAWCHC 105; 2018 (2) SACR 644 (WCC) in the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division
Court membership
Judges sitting Mogoeng CJ, Zondo DCJ, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Theron J, Cachalia AJ, Dlodlo AJ, Goliath AJ and Petse AJ
Case opinions
Access to information on the private funding of political parties is essential for the effective exercise of political rights. The Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 is unconstitutional insofar as it fails to provide for such access.
Decision byMogoeng CJ (Zondo DCJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Theron J, Dlodlo AJ, Goliath AJ and Petse AJ concurring)
ConcurrenceFroneman J (Cachalia AJ concurring)
Keywords
  • Political party funding
  • Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000
  • right of access to information
  • right to an informed vote
  • right to vote
  • section 7(2) of the Constitution
  • section 19 of the Constitution
  • section 32 of the Constitution
  • transparency, accountability, openness

My Vote Counts NPC v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another is a decision in the Constitutional Court of South Africa which established a constitutional right of access to information about the sources of political party funding. The court held unanimously that the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 was inconsistent with the Constitution insofar as it failed to give effect to that right. The matter was heard on 13 March 2018 and decided on 21 June 2018, with a majority judgment written by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng.

Contents

Background

In the 2015 matter of My Vote Counts v Speaker of the National Assembly, the non-profit My Vote Counts approached the Constitutional Court of South Africa with an application to compel the Parliament of South Africa to pass legislation that would oblige political parties to disclose the sources of their private funding. That application failed insofar as it was couched in terms of the constitutional right of access to information, which is regulated by the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (PAIA); a majority of the Constitutional Court held that, under the principle of subsidiarity, My Vote Counts was required to lodge a frontal challenge the constitutionality of PAIA rather than rely directly on the constitutional right which PAIA aims to effectuate. [1]

In the aftermath of that judgment, My Vote Counts lodged requests with various political parties, asking in terms of PAIA for information about the sources of the parties' private funding. Some of the parties declined those requests, arguing that PAIA did not cover such disclosures from political parties. This triggered an application by My Vote Counts to the High Court of South Africa, in which it sought to challenge the constitutional validity of PAIA insofar as PAIA failed to mandate the disclosure of private party funding. Judge Shehnaz Meer of the Western Cape High Court found in its favour on 27 September 2017, and her order of constitutional invalidity was referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation; My Vote Counts also appealed the High Court's refusal to declare that PAIA should require "continuous and systematic" disclosure of information on party funding.

Arguments

It was common cause among the disputants that PAIA was the act of national legislation intended to regulate and give effect to the right of access to information. My Vote Counts argued, and the High Court agreed, that PAIA was inconsistent with the Constitution insofar as it failed to fulfil the imperative of promoting access to information on the private funding of political parties and independent candidates. According to their application, this imperative arises from a joint reading of sections 7(2), 19, and 32 of the Constitution: the meaningful exercise of the political rights provided in section 19 depends on access to information about political finance, and section 32 compels Parliament to give effect to the right of access to "any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights". Compliance with section 32 therefore requires that Parliament pass legislation to provide for public access to information about party funding.

The application was opposed by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, who contended that PAIA made adequate provision for the disclosure of information about the private funding of political parties and independent candidates.

Judgment

On 21 June 2018, in a majority judgment written by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, [2] [3] the Constitutional Court confirmed the order of constitutional invalidity made by the Western Cape High Court. Preserving the substance of Meer's order, the Constitutional Court declared that:

The majority agreed with the reasoning of My Vote Counts, holding that there was a vital connection between the right to vote and the right of access to information, insofar as the meaningful exercise of political rights must be an informed exercise of the same. Parliament was ordered to amend PAIA, and to "take any other measure it deems appropriate to provide for the recordal, preservation and facilitation of reasonable access to information on the private funding of political parties and independent candidates", within 18 months.

However, the court refused My Vote Count's appeal on the matter of ordering "continuous and systematic" disclosure; again agreeing with the High Court, the majority held that such an order would trench on the separation of powers, insofar as it would go beyond requiring Parliament to fulfil a right to prescribing the manner in which Parliament should legislate.

In a brief separate concurrence, in which Acting Justice Azhar Cachalia concurred, Justice Johan Froneman reflected on several tangential issues, including the implementation of the court's order and the notion of participatory democracy, which he said would be weakened not only if individual voters were uninformed but also if civil society and media institutions were uninformed.

Reactions

Civil society organisations, including the South African National Editors' Forum and amaBhungane, welcomed the decision. [4] [5]

In June 2020, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed into law the Promotion of Access to Information Amendment Act, 2019, which gives effect to the decision. [6]

Related Research Articles

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".

<i>Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth</i> 1992 Australian High Court case

Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth, is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Disputed Returns (Queensland)</span> Court that adjudicates election disputes in Queensland, Australia

The Queensland Court of Disputed Returns is a court that adjudicates disputes concerning Queensland Government and local government elections and state referendums in Queensland, Australia. The Court is a division of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The German federal election system regulates the election of the members of the national parliament, called the Bundestag. According to the principles governing the elections laws, set down in Art. 38 of the German Basic Law, elections are to be universal, direct, free, equal, and secret. Furthermore, the German Basic Law stipulates that Bundestag elections are to take place every four years and that one can vote, and be elected, upon reaching the age of 18. All other stipulations for the federal elections are regulated by the Federal Electoral Act. Elections always take place on a Sunday. Mail votes are possible upon application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dikgang Moseneke</span> South African judge

Dikgang Ernest Moseneke OLG is a South African jurist and former Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa.

The Judicial Service Commission is a body specially constituted by the South African Constitution to recommend persons for appointment to the judiciary of South Africa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mogoeng Mogoeng</span> Chief Justice of South Africa

Mogoeng Thomas Reetsang Mogoeng is a South African jurist who served as the Chief Justice of South Africa from 8 September 2011 until his retirement on 11 October 2021.

South African constitutional law is the area of South African law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa by the country's courts. All laws of South Africa must conform with the Constitution; any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

Sisi Virginia Khampepe is a retired South African judge who served in the Constitutional Court of South Africa between October 2009 and October 2021. Formerly a prominent labour lawyer, she joined the bench in December 2000 as a judge of the Transvaal Provincial Division. She was also a member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Mbuyiseli Russel Madlanga is a judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. He joined the bench on 1 August 2013 on the appointment of President Jacob Zuma. Formerly an advocate in the Eastern Cape, he first served as a judge in the Transkei Division between 1996 and 2001.

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." 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,

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.

<i>FEC v. National Conservative PAC</i> 1985 United States Supreme Court case

FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign.

<i>New Nation Movement NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa</i> South African legal case

New Nation Movement NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, [2020] ZACC 11, is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, handed down on 11 June 2020, which declared that the Constitution requires that citizens be allowed to stand for election to the National Assembly and provincial legislatures as independents without having to join or form a political party. The declaration was suspended for 24 months to allow Parliament to modify the electoral laws to comply. The majority judgment was written by Justice Madlanga and a concurring opinion was written by Justice Jafta; these opinions were supported by eight of the nine judges hearing the case. Justice Froneman filed a dissenting opinion.

<i>My Vote Counts v Speaker of the National Assembly</i> South African legal case

In My Vote Counts NPC v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, the Constitutional Court of South Africa dismissed an application which sought to compel Parliament to pass legislation mandating the disclosure of political party funding information. Split seven to four, the court held that the application transgressed the principle of subsidiarity and separation of powers.

<i>Masetlha v President</i> South African legal case

Masetlha v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another is an important decision in the Constitutional Court of South Africa which held that procedural fairness was not a ground for the review of executive action. Upholding President Thabo Mbeki's decision to dismiss Billy Masetlha as the head of the National Intelligence Agency, a majority of the court held that, unlike legality and rationality, procedural fairness was not a requirement for the lawful exercise of the President's powers of appointment and dismissal, the exercise of which constituted executive rather than administrative action. The matter was heard on 10 May 2007 and decided on 3 October 2007, with Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke writing for the majority.

<i>Khosa v Minister of Social Development</i> South African legal case

Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others, Mahlaule and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which established that it is unconstitutional to exclude permanent residents from the social welfare system on the grounds that they lack South African citizenship. The court found that provisions of the Social Assistance Act, 1992 were unconstitutional on that basis.

<i>UDM v Speaker of the National Assembly</i> South African legal case

United Democratic Movement v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others is a 2017 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the purpose and procedure of parliamentary motions of no confidence in the President of the Republic of South Africa. In a unanimous judgment written by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, the court held that the Speaker of the National Assembly was empowered to prescribe a secret ballot in votes of no confidence.

<i>Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly</i> (2017) South African legal case

Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another is a 2017 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Parliament's constitutional obligation to hold the President accountable for his conduct. In a majority judgment written by Justice Chris Jafta, the court ordered the National Assembly to make rules regulating presidential impeachment under section 89 of the Constitution and to use those rules to determine whether President Jacob Zuma had committed impeachable conduct in failing to comply with a report by the Public Protector. Arising from the Nkandlagate scandal, the case was politically sensitive, and critics held that the court's order transgressed the separation of powers.

<i>Ramakatsa v Magashule</i> South African legal case

Ramakatsa and Others v Magashule and Others is a 2012 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the internal governance of political parties and the section 19 right to participate in political party activities. The court reviewed and overturned an internal elective conference held by the African National Congress (ANC) in Parys, Free State in June 2012. This had the effect of invalidating the election of the Free State ANC's provincial leadership, including the election of Ace Magashule as ANC Provincial Chairperson.

References

  1. ↑ Porat, Iddo (2021). "Buying Democracy: The Regulation of Private Funding of Political Parties and the Press After My Vote Counts". Constitutional Court Review. 11 (1): 503–531. doi: 10.2989/CCR.2021.0018 . ISSN   2073-6215.
  2. ↑ Ampofo-Anti, Ohene Yaw (27 June 2018). "Understanding the My Vote Counts judgment". GroundUp News. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
  3. ↑ "ConCourt confirms voters have the right to be informed on private political funding". The Mail & Guardian. 21 June 2018. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
  4. ↑ "Parties have a duty to reveal their donors". The Mail & Guardian. 16 November 2018. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
  5. ↑ "Advocacy: Media welcome Constitutional Court ruling on party funding". The Mail & Guardian. 26 June 2018. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
  6. ↑ Allsop, Geoffrey (15 June 2020). "Amended law will improve transparency of political party funding". GroundUp News. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
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.