In Mani v The Information Officer Mintek, Mani made a request to the Information officer of Mintek in terms of PAIA to determine the source of an email containing defamatory information about her. The court ordered Mintek to provide Mani with the identity of the employee who sent out the offensive email. The court ordered that Mani be provided with the employee’s IP address.
Who should care about this judgment and why?
- Information officers because PAIA regulations create extra obligations and offences for them.
- The Information Regulator because they must enforce laws to protect people’s rights to privacy and access to information.
- Public bodies because PAIA create obligations for them to make certain records automatically available.
- Private bodies because they must make certain records available.
What could you do about it?
- Understand the roles and responsibilities of the information officer that the PAIA regulations create by reading our post.
- Use our public interest self-assessment to determine if you are a low or high public interest organisation.
- Join our access to information programme if you have a high public interest score.
- Dive into the detail by reading the full judgment.
- Access other relevant judgments by joining a Michalsons programme.
Our insights on the judgment
Access to information is closely related to protecting personal information. So, if you’re trying to comply with PAIA, then POPIA is also relevant because the same regulator deals with both POPIA and PAIA. In September 2021, the Department of Justice published final PAIA regulations.
Information officers and heads of organisations must familiarise themselves with the PAIA regulations because they create extra obligations and offences for the information officer. For example:
An information officer who charges a fee for inspection of any record other than the fee prescribed is guilty of an offence and may liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a period of up to two years.
Furthermore, if an information officer unreasonably denies a request for access, complainants may lodge a complaint with the regulator, who must follow a procedure.
Digest
Mani approached the information officer of Mintek to request access to certain information to protect her rights to dignity. She was appointed as head of market intelligence at Mintek. An email was widely circulated within Mintek accusing Mani of fraud and impropriety in the interview process. The email also contained allegations that there was a romantic relationship between Mani and her supervisor.
Mani wanted to conduct a forensic investigation as to the source of the email, but there was disagreement about her access to laptops and servers.
She approached the information officer at Mintel to request access to the information. The information officer denied her request. Mani approached the High Court for relief.
The court unpacked the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000; and how Mani exhausted internal remedies. The court acknowledged that she took reasonable steps to find the record despite Mintek’s contentions that the record did not exist.
Order
The court ordered Mintek to provide Mani with the identity of the employee using a certain IP address and to provide her with logs for that IP address.
Details of Mani v The Information Officer Mintek
- Universal citation: [2021] ZAGPJHC 430
- Case number: 26728/2019
- Full name: Mani v The Information Officer Mintek and Another
Please note: The summary of this judgment is not intended for a general audience. It is specifically drafted for the members of the Michalsons Access to Information programme.
