In Afriforum v Eskom, the parties had a dispute when Eskom refused to grant Afriforum access, under PAIA, to various contracts related to coal and diesel procurement, as well as contracts with neighbouring countries for electricity provision.

Who should care about this judgment and why?

  • The information regulator because it has a vested interest in ensuring compliance with PAIA.
  • Individuals because of the precedent this case may set for challenging refusals of access to information under PAIA.
  • The media because it could affect their ability to access information vital for investigative journalism and public interest reporting.

What could you do about it?

  • Read the full judgment by downloading it.
  • Access other relevant PAIA judgments by joining the Michalsons Access to Information programme.

Our insights on the judgment: Afriforum v Eskom

PAIA requests must be responded to within 30 days with reasons provided for refusal. Public interest overrides may apply if disclosure benefits the public more than harm to private or commercial interests. The court assessed whether Eskom provided valid reasons for refusing Afriforum’s application to gain access to the contracts.

Digest

Eskom refused access to contracts because of potential harm to commercial interests and confidentiality clauses. Afriforum represented public interest and challenged Eskom’s refusal, asserting the need for transparency given Eskom’s history of irregularities and public expenditure.

The court’s decision in Afriforum v Eskom

The court found in favour of  Afriforum, ordering Eskom to provide access to various contracts related to the purchase and transportation of coal and diesel, as well as contracts with neighbouring countries for electricity supply. The court emphasised the importance of transparency and accountability in public institutions like Eskom, especially regarding significant expenditures and contracts involving public resources. Despite Eskom’s claims of commercial sensitivity and potential harm, the court found its justifications lacking in evidence and factual basis. Additionally, the court dismissed Eskom’s argument that Afriforum’s motives were self-serving, asserting that the public’s right to information under PAIA outweighs any concerns about the requester’s intentions. This decision highlights the fundamental principle of open governance and the public’s entitlement to access information that impacts their interests and the functioning of public entities.

Order

The court ordered Eskom:

  • to make the requested documents available to Afriforum; and
  • to pay the costs of the two counsel and Afriforum’s application.

Details of Afriforum v Eskom

  • Universal citation: [2024] ZAGPPHC 270
  • Case number: 2023/002513
  • Full name: Afriforum NPC v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd and Another

Please note: This judgment summary is not intended for a general audience. It is specifically drafted for the members of the Michalsons Access to Information programme.