Click here to read the judgement on Saflii

[1]          This application concerns the applicant’s right of access to information. It is brought in terms of section 78 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) to compel production of records which the respondents have refused to disclose.

[2]          PAIA was enacted to give effect to the right of access to information enshrined in section 32 of the Constitution, subject to justifiable limitations including the reasonable protection of privacy, and good governance. Its objects include the promotion of transparency, accountability and the effective governance of all public bodies.

[3]          As functionaries exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of any legislation, and departments of state or administration in the provincial sphere of government, the respondents are public bodies as defined in section 1 of PAIA. Requesters are entitled to the records of public bodies regardless of the reasons given for requesting access or the information officer’s belief as to what the requester’s reasons are for requesting access, provided only that they comply with the procedural requirements of PAIA. If the requester has complied with the relevant procedure, access can only be refused on grounds contemplated by Chapter 4. Consequently, if the requester has complied with PAIA and the information does not fall within one of the grounds of exclusion, there is no discretion on the part of the public body or the court to refuse access.

[4]          Section 81(3) of PAIA places the burden of establishing that a refusal of a request complies with the provisions of the act on the party invoking the exemption from disclosure. Applications in terms of section 78 are civil proceedings, so that evidentiary burden must be discharged on a balance of probabilities.

[5]          The applicant is the former Head of the KwaZulu Natal Department of Social Development (the Department of Social Development) which is the third respondent. The information at issue comprises: the records of a meeting of the Provincial Executive Committee relating to an agenda item concerning the applicant; the reports of two forensic investigations into her alleged misconduct which were conducted by the office of the second respondent (the Premier) and the fifth respondent (the Provincial Treasury); and records relating to her unsuccessful applications for the posts of head of the Department of Social Development, and of the fourth respondent (the Department of Transport).

[6]          The present application follows a largely unsuccessful request for access to information made to the first respondent (the Director-General) in her capacity as the Information Officer in the office of the Premier, and the Premier’s dismissal of an appeal against the Director-General’s refusal to provide most of the information requested.

[7]          The Department of Social Development made common cause with the Director-General and the Premier in opposing the application and persisting in refusing access on various grounds. The Department of Transport did not file a notice to oppose. The Provincial Treasury did, but thereafter failed to file an answering affidavit, despite a court order directing the first to third and fifth respondents to file their answering affidavits by a specified date.