Economic Freedom Fighters v Ramaphosa and Others (36809/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 457 (20 July 2021)

Economic Freedom Fighters v Ramaphosa and Others (36809/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 457 (20 July 2021)

The court held that the applicant failed to establish any right or compelling public interest warranting the disclosure of the sealed FIC report. The Political Party Funding Act was not in effect at the relevant time, and the applicant's reliance on section 19(1) of the Constitution was misplaced, as political rights vest in individuals, not parties. Statutory confidentiality under the Financial Intelligence Centre Act overrides claims of public interest unless specific statutory exceptions are met, which was not the case here. The directive sealing the FIC report was lawfully issued, and the applicant did not challenge it at the appropriate time. The court found no basis to uplift the...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 457
Parties
Applicant: Economic Freedom Fighters; Respondent: Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa; Respondent: The Speaker of the National Assembly; Respondent: The Public Protector; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: The National Police Commissioner; Respondent: Financial Intelligence Centre; Respondent: Amabhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC; Respondent: Informative Regulator of South Africa; Respondent: Bejani Chauke; Respondent: James Thokoana Motlatsi; Respondent: Donne Leigh Nicol; Respondent: Raymond Sifiso Ndlovu Dabengwa; Respondent: Crispian Garth Olver; Respondent: Trustees for the time being of the Ria Tenda Trust
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 July 2021
Case Number
36809/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Uplift Sealing Directive
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Sardiwalla
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Political Rights, Confidential Information, Financial Intelligence Centre Act, Public Interest Limitation
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Open Justice Political Rights Confidential Information Financial Intelligence Centre Act Public Interest Limitation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Economic Freedom Fighters

Applicant

Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa

Respondent

The Speaker of the National Assembly

Respondent

The Public Protector

Respondent

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

The National Police Commissioner

Respondent

Financial Intelligence Centre

Respondent

Amabhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC

Respondent

Informative Regulator of South Africa

Respondent

Bejani Chauke

Respondent

James Thokoana Motlatsi

Respondent

Donne Leigh Nicol

Respondent

Raymond Sifiso Ndlovu Dabengwa

Respondent

Crispian Garth Olver

Respondent

Trustees for the time being of the Ria Tenda Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Uplift Sealing Directive

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to access the sealed FIC report relating to the CR17 campaign.
  2. 2 Whether the directive sealing the FIC report should be uplifted in the interests of open justice and public interest.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's rights under section 19(1) of the Constitution are affected by the sealing of the report.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to establish any right or compelling public interest warranting the disclosure of the sealed FIC report. The Political Party Funding Act was not in effect at the relevant time, and the applicant's reliance on section 19(1) of the Constitution was misplaced, as political rights vest in individuals, not parties. Statutory confidentiality under the Financial Intelligence Centre Act overrides claims of public interest unless specific statutory exceptions are met, which was not the case here. The directive sealing the FIC report was lawfully issued, and the applicant did not challenge it at the appropriate time. The court found no basis to uplift the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to uplift the directive sealing the FIC record is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.