13
August 2009
CCT
25/09 [2009] ZACC 21
Brümmer v Minister for Social Development and Others
Keyphrase :
Promotion
of Access to Information Act
|
In
terms of section 78(2) of the Promotion of Access to
Information Act 2 of 2000, if a member of the public has
been refused access to certain information by a court,
such refusal may be challenged by lodging an application
within a 30 day period.
The
applicant had been denied access to information by the
Department of Social Development in the matter of Brummer
v Minister of Social Development & others [2009] JOL
23314 (WCC). Subsequent to an unsuccessful appeal, the
applicant made a late application to the
Cape
High Court
for relief together with an application for the
condonation of the late filing of his papers. The
application fore condonation was denied, leading to the
present challenge regarding the constitutionality of the
prescribed 30 day period.
In
a judgment handed down this morning, the court examined
sections 77(4), 77(5)(c)(i) and section 78(2) of the
Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000.
The
application for leave to appeal directly to the
Constitutional Court
against the order made by the Western Cape High Court
(refusal of condonation), was dealt with in detail.
The
issues in dispute were as follows :
1.
Which provisions of Act 2 of 2000 govern applications to
court challenging refusals to access to information?
2.
Whether the 30 day limit in terms of section 78(2) is
inconsistent with the Constitution ;
3.
What the appropriate relief would be if the 30 day period
was found to be unconstitutional.
Source
: LexisNexis |
ConCourt
rules for M&G - 13 August
The Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the Mail &
Guardian on Thursday saying 30 days was too short a time limit to
lodge a court challenge after a failed application for information
for a story it was working on. Handing down judgment, Judge
Sandile Ngcobo said by unanimous decision the court decided to
replace the 30 day limit set down in the Promotion of Access to
Information Act with 180 days. This would stay in place as an
interim measure until Parliament corrected section 78.2 of the Act
which set down that time period. - IOL
website
M&G
welcomes Con Court ruling as victory for fourth estate - 14
August
The Mail and Guardian newspaper has welcomed yet
another Constitutional Court ruling in favour of the paper and one
of its journalists. The paper's editor Nick Dawes has
described the
Constitutional Court
ruling as a victory for the media at large, not only for the
paper. "We're extremely happy about that outcome not just for
us but for our democracy more broadly". Dawes said the ruling
is a sign that courts are beginning to recognise the vital role
played by media in informing the public. "Our law is starting
to appreciate the role of the media in promoting a open democracy".
The Mail and Guardian will now return to the
Cape
High Court
in a bid to obtain the information from the department which
led to the court action in the first place. - Eye
Witness News website
Battle
over 'constitutional right' to electricity - 5 August
The question of whether access to electricity is a constitutional
right will be argued in the Constitutional Court later this month
when six residents of an apartment block in Ennerdale,
Johannesburg, ask the court to declare that the disconnection of
electricity to their block without notice was unlawful. The
residents had been without electricity since July last year after
City Power disconnected the supply because the building's owner
was R400 000 in arrears. - allAfrica
website
Moseneke
warns state officials to heed court orders . . . - 13 August
Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke said yesterday if state
officials did not comply with court orders, SA would be on the
slippery slope to destruction. Moseneke made this comment during
an application by Justice and Constitutional Development Minister
Jeff Radebe for an 18-month extension to initiate legislation
providing for the effective enforcement of judgment debts. The
Constitutional Court ruled that section 3 of the State
Liability Act
was unconstitutional as it prevented parties to whom debts were
owed by the state from executing against or attaching state assets
for the satisfaction of judgment debts. - Business
Day website
Top
judges must decide on rape case - 13 August
The highest court in the land must decide whether a woman who says
she was raped as a child nearly four decades ago can confront her
accuser in court. Then 13 years old, Ms B said the rapes by a
wealthy "oom-like" family friend, Mr E, took place over
a period of two years, and she had only recently been able to come
to terms with the events. With most of the key witnesses now dead,
a High Court judgment against her and the State having already
granted Mr E a permanent stay of prosecution, the Constitutional
Court has been asked to decide whether Ms B can pursue a private
prosecution. - IOL website
See
also : Judicial
Service Commission, and, Judiciary