In Smuts v Department of Economic Development (Department), the Landmark Foundation Trust (the Foundation) won the right to access the Department’s records. The court ordered the Department to hand over all records of applications and permits issued to individuals allowing them to trap, kill, hunt, or translocate any leopards. The judgment is seen as a huge victory for the Foundation because the Department had sealed these records since 2017.
Who should care about this judgment and why?
- Public bodies because it provides guidance to your information officers on how to correctly interpret the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) provisions.
- Anyone requesting access to a public body record because it provides insight into how a court practically enforces PAIA to promote transparency.
- Information officers of public bodies because they must be aware of how to process access to information requests in line with PAIA and the regulations.
- The information regulator because of their mandate to promote access to information.
What could you do about it?
- Keep up to date with all PAIA developments by joining the Access to Information programme.
- Dive into the detail by reading the full judgment.
- Learn about the process involved in requesting access to information by reading our post on the PAIA regulations.
- Access other relevant judgments by remaining a member of the programme.
Our insights on the judgment
This is yet another important PAIA judgment that deals with several trending issues. For example, we see how:
- information officers of public bodies should correctly process access requests.
- courts
- enforce access to information requests by considering a requester’s fundamental rights.
- promote transparency by considering matters involving a high public interest.
This judgment demonstrates how poorly the Department interpreted section 34 of PAIA when it denied the Foundation’s access request. Section 34 provides for the mandatory protection of privacy of a third party who is a natural person.
Digest
The Landmark Foundation Trust is a wildlife conservation NGO and registered charitable trust. They focus on protecting wildlife by supporting a healthy ecosystem and the conservation of endangered species. One of its projects is to rescue and protect leopards. The court highlighted that leopards are an endangered species. Anyone planning to hunt or capture a leopard must have a permit.
For two years, the Foundation requested the Department’s information officer to provide access to all applications they received and permits the Department issued to individuals wanting to trap, kill, hunt, or translocate any leopards in the Eastern Cape. The Foundation made this request in terms of section 18 of the PAIA. The Department’s information officer declined the Foundations request for access. The Foundation then lodged an appeal to the Department. The Department refused access on the grounds that disclosing the records to the Foundation would result in the disclosure of personal information of third parties. (Section 34 of PAIA). The Department also argued that if they were to disclose the records, then criminals with ulterior motives could abuse this information.
A victory for the Foundation
The court held that there was no substance to the Departments arguments because they were unable to prove that the information the Foundation requested is either personal information or that disclosing the records to the Foundation would be unreasonable.
Order
The court ordered the MEC for Environmental Affairs to disclose to the Foundation its records of all:
- applications the Department received,
- permits issued to trap, kill, hunt, or translocate any leopards
in or from the Eastern Cape since 2017 within 14 days of the judgment.
Details of Smuts NO v MEC, Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development
- Universal citation: [2022] 1199-2021 (ECM)
- Case number: 1199/2021
- Full name: Smuts NO and others v MEC, Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism and others
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.
