Right2Know Campaign and Another v Minister of Police and Another (2013/32512) [2014] ZAGPJHC 343; [2015] 1 All SA 367 (GJ) (3 December 2014)

Right2Know Campaign and Another v Minister of Police and Another (2013/32512) [2014] ZAGPJHC 343; [2015] 1 All SA 367 (GJ) (3 December 2014)

The court found that the respondents failed to provide any factual or evidential basis to justify refusal of access to the list of National Key Points under PAIA. The National Key Points Act does not require secrecy regarding the identity of key points, and the respondents' reliance on security and privacy concerns was unsupported by evidence. The court held that the public interest override in section 46 of PAIA applies, given the unrebutted allegations of non-compliance with statutory obligations and significant public concern regarding expenditure and legality. The principle of legality requires that citizens be able to know which places are designated as key points to avoid...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 343
Parties
Applicant: Right2Know Campaign; Applicant: South African History Archive; Amicus Curiae: M & G Media Limited; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: National Deputy Information Officer of the South African Police Service
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2014
Case Number
2013/32512
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Application granted; refusal declared unlawful and unconstitutional; respondents ordered to disclose records.
Judges
Sutherland
Legal Topics
Promotion of Access to Information Act, National Key Points Act, Public Interest Override, Principle of Legality, State Secrecy, Constitutional Right of Access
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Promotion of Access to Information Act National Key Points Act Public Interest Override Principle of Legality State Secrecy Constitutional Right of Access

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Right2Know Campaign

Applicant

South African History Archive

Applicant

M & G Media Limited

Amicus Curiae

Minister of Police

Respondent

National Deputy Information Officer of the South African Police Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to disclose the list of National Key Points under the National Key Points Act was lawful under PAIA.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents provided sufficient justification under PAIA for refusing access to the requested records.
  3. 3 Whether the public interest override in section 46 of PAIA mandates disclosure of the records.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to provide any factual or evidential basis to justify refusal of access to the list of National Key Points under PAIA. The National Key Points Act does not require secrecy regarding the identity of key points, and the respondents' reliance on security and privacy concerns was unsupported by evidence. The court held that the public interest override in section 46 of PAIA applies, given the unrebutted allegations of non-compliance with statutory obligations and significant public concern regarding expenditure and legality. The principle of legality requires that citizens be able to know which places are designated as key points to avoid...

Court Disposition

Application granted; refusal declared unlawful and unconstitutional; respondents ordered to disclose records.

Orders

  • It is declared that the decision of the First and Second Respondents to refuse the Applicants' request for information under PAIA is unlawful and unconstitutional.
  • The decision by the First and Second Respondents to refuse the request is set aside.