My Vote Counts v Speaker of the National Assembly

Last updated

My Vote Counts v Speaker of the National Assembly
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameMy Vote Counts NPC v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others
Decided30 September 2015 (2015-09-30)
Docket nos.CCT 121/14
Citation(s) [2015] ZACC 31
Court membership
Judges sitting Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Nkabinde J, Jappie AJ, Theron AJ, Molemela AJ, Tshiqi AJ
Case opinions
Decision byKhampepe J, Madlanga J, Nkabinde J, and Theron AJ (Mogoeng CJ, Molemela AJ and Tshiqi AJ concurring)
DissentCameron J (Moseneke DCJ, Froneman J and Jappie AJ concurring)
Keywords

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.

Contents

The matter was heard on 10 February 2015 and decided on 30 September 2015. The application by My Vote Counts, a non-profit organisation, posited an interaction between two constitutional rights – the section 32 right to access to information and the section 19 right to vote – which it argued imposed a constitutional obligation on Parliament to make legislation promoting systematic transparency in party funding. While the minority endorsed this argument, the majority declined to evaluate its merit. According to the majority, the applicant's complaint was justiciable only as a challenge to the constitutionality of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000, which regulated the right of access to information, and any such challenge should be heard by a lower court.

Background and arguments

The non-profit My Vote Counts approached the Constitutional Court with a request that the court should compel the Parliament of South Africa to pass legislation that would oblige political parties to disclose the sources of their private funding. The application rested on section 32 of the Constitution, which provides the right of access to information. In particular, section 32(1)(b) grants everyone 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", and section 32(2) obliges Parliament to enact legislation to give effect to that right. Represented by David Unterhalter SC, [1] My Vote Counts argued that the exercise of the constitutional right to vote (section 19) rested on access to information about party funding sources, and that the constitutional right of access to information therefore required the systematic disclosure of such information to the public.

The application was opposed by the presiding officers of Parliament – the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces – represented by Wim Trengove SC. [1] Parliament argued that there was no need to enact specific legislation to fulfil the purpose sought by My Vote Counts, because existing legislation promoted accountable and transparent governance and access to information. In particular, the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) regulated the section 32 right to know and provided for citizens to request information about the sources of political parties' private funding. My Vote Counts contended that PAIA was not sufficient to fulfil Parliament's constitutional obligation, because it did not require proactive and regular disclosure of the relevant information.

Majority judgment

Handing down judgment on 30 September 2015, [2] a majority of the Constitutional Court dismissed the application on the technical grounds of the principle of subsidiarity as affirmed in SANDU v Minister of Defence [3] and elsewhere. In a judgment co-written by Justice Sisi Khampepe, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, Justice Bess Nkabinde, and Acting Justice Leona Theron, the majority held that PAIA was the legislation intended to give effect to the constitutional right of access to information. The essence of the complaint by My Vote Counts was therefore a complaint about the putative constitutional shortcomings of PAIA. Under the principle of subsidiarity, My Votes Counts was required to challenge the constitutional validity of that legislation – in the High Court of South Africa – instead of relying directly on the constitutional right which the legislation was enacted to effectuate. The majority was concerned that to overlook the principle of subsidiarity, and grant the application, would be to trench on the separation of powers.

Minority judgment

Justice Edwin Cameron wrote for the minority, which disagreed that the applicant was obliged to challenge PAIA frontally and held that the applicant's approach to the Constitutional Court was competent. Cameron argued that Parliament's technical defence – resting on the principle of subsidiary – should not be allowed to trump the substance of My Vote Counts's complaint, writing that, "to shut down the route the applicant has chosen to enforce its right to information risks impoverishing the Constitution and this Court’s jurisdiction to interpret it".

Moreover, whereas the majority declined to evaluate the argument that information on party funding is essential to the exercise of the right to vote, the minority strongly affirmed that argument. The minority also agreed with My Vote Counts that PAIA was woefully inadequate to fulfil the concomitant right to access to information about party funding, and that Parliament had therefore failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation.

Reactions

Some commentators viewed the court's decision as an evasion of the substance of the application [4] or as a "lost opportunity to begin a respectful dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature about the shape and content of information security and disclosure laws". [5] However, others pointed out that the minority opinion provided rhetorical support to a continued campaign by My Vote Counts for transparency in party funding, which ultimately culminated in My Vote Counts v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services. [6]

Further reading

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.

Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate or local level that is consistent with their resolution. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as "the principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level". The concept is applicable in the fields of government, political science, neuropsychology, cybernetics, management and in military command. The OED adds that the term "subsidiarity" in English follows the early German usage of "Subsidiarität". More distantly, it is derived from the Latin verb subsidio, and the related noun subsidium.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Senate (Belgium)</span> Upper house of the Belgian federal parliament

The Senate is one of the two chambers of the bicameral Federal Parliament of Belgium, the other being the Chamber of Representatives. It is considered to be the "upper house" of the Federal Parliament. Created in 1831 as a chamber fully equal to the Chamber of Representatives, it has undergone several reforms in the past, most notably in 1993 and 2014. The 2014 elections were the first without a direct election of senators. Instead, the new Senate is composed of members of community and regional parliaments and co-opted members. It is a chamber of the communities and regions and serves as a platform for discussion and reflection about matters between these federated entities. The Senate today plays a minor role in the federal legislative process. However, the Senate, together with the Chamber, has full competence for the Constitution and legislation on the organization and functioning of the Federal State and the federated entities. Since the reform of 2014, it holds about ten plenary sessions a year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of Information Act 2000</span> Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom

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 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 was criticised by freedom of information campaigners as a diluted form of what had been proposed in the White Paper. The full provisions of the act came into force on 1 January 2005. The Act was the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department. However, freedom of information policy is now the responsibility of the Cabinet Office. The Act led to the renaming of the Data Protection Commissioner, who is now known as the Information Commissioner. The Office of the Information Commissioner oversees the operation of the Act.

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 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.

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.

Johan Coenraad Froneman is a South African retired judge who was a justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa from October 2009 to May 2020. He joined the judiciary as a judge of the Eastern Cape Division in 1994 and was elevated to the apex court by President Jacob Zuma. He was also the inaugural Deputy Judge President of the Labour Court of South Africa between 1996 and 1999.

<i>Magajane v Chairperson, North West Gambling Board</i> South African legal case

Magajane v Chairperson, North West Gambling Board and Others is an important case in South African criminal procedure, decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 8 June 2006. The court found that provisions of the North West Gambling Act, 2001 were unconstitutional insofar as they permitted warrantless inspections of private premises for the purposes of obtaining evidence for prosecuting illegal gambling. In a unanimous judgment written by Justice Johann van der Westhuizen, the court held that the relevant provisions imposed an unjustifiable limitation on the constitutional right to privacy.

<i>Thint v NDPP</i> South African legal case

Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others; Zuma and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others is a 2008 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of criminal procedure. It concerns the lawfulness of search and seizure warrants issued in terms of section 29 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, 1998 in the course of an investigation into serious economic crime. The court implemented several tests for the lawfulness of such warrants and confirmed that the state was not required to provide notice to the subjects of such warrants.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in South Africa</span>

The South African judiciary has broad powers of judicial review under the Constitution of South Africa. Courts are empowered to pronounce on the legality and constitutionality of exercises of public power, including administrative action, executive action, and the passage of acts of Parliament. Though informed by the common law principles that guided judicial review during the apartheid era, contemporary judicial review is authorised by and grounded in constitutional principles. In the case of administrative action, it is also codified in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000.

<i>Fraser v ABSA</i> South African legal case

Fraser v ABSA Bank Limited is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa with import for South African criminal procedure. It concerns the interpretation of chapter 5 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998, dealing with the restraint and confiscation of property that constitutes the proceeds of crime. It was heard on 23 May 2006 and decided on 15 December 2006 with a unanimous judgment written by Justice Johann van der Westhuizen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Access to public information in Europe</span> Public access to information maintained by government agencies in Europe

Access to public information and freedom of information (FOI) refer to the right to access 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's participation and allowing their informed participation into public life. The fundamental premise of the right to access 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 builds on the principle that in a democratic system people should be in the condition of accessing a wide range of information in order to effectively participate in public life as well as on matters affecting them.


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.

<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 Minister of Justice and Correctional Services</i> South African legal case

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.

<i>Democratic Alliance v President</i> South African legal case

Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others, often known as Simelane, is a 2012 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which expanded rationality review to include evaluation of the relationship between the procedure by which executive decisions are taken and the purpose for which the relevant executive power is conferred. Applying this augmented standard, the court held that President Jacob Zuma had acted irrationally and unconstitutionally in appointing Menzi Simelane as the National Director of Public Prosecutions, given that he had neglected to consider prima facie evidence of dishonesty by Simelane.

<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>Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg</i> South African legal case

Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa concerning the content of the constitutional right of access to water. It was decided on 8 October 2009 in a unanimous judgment, the last written by Justice Kate O'Regan before her retirement.

References

  1. 1 2 "ConCourt puts Paia in the party-funding spotlight". The Mail & Guardian. 10 February 2015. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
  2. Berg, Shanelle van der (1 October 2015). "Understanding the Constitutional Court judgments on political party funding". GroundUp News. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
  3. South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Others (CCT65/06) [2007] ZACC 10; 2007 (5) SA 400 (CC); 2007 (8) BCLR 863 (CC) ; [2007] 9 BLLR 785 (CC) ; (2007) 28 ILJ 1909 (CC) (30 May 2007).
  4. Cachalia, Raisa (2 January 2017). "Botching procedure, avoiding substance: a critique of the majority judgment in My Vote Counts". South African Journal on Human Rights. 33 (1): 138–153. doi:10.1080/02587203.2017.1303954. ISSN   0258-7203.
  5. Klaaren, Jonathan (2018). "My Vote Counts and the Transparency of Political Party Funding in South Africa". Law, Democracy & Development. 22 (1): 1–11. doi:10.4314/ldd.v22i1.1. ISSN   2077-4907.
  6. 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.