The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The SA Human Rights Commission welcomes today's Constitutional Court judgment declaring Section 78 (2) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act unconstitutional and it also noted the connections between this legislation and the right to freedom of expression.
The court found that the timeframes provided by the legislation within which people can apply to court to determine their requests for access were unreasonable. In addition, the court also gave Parliament 18 months in which to amend the provision the 30 day period prescribed by section 78(2) to 180 days.

This judgment follows on a challenge brought Mail & Guardian journalist Mr Stefaans Brummer who was refused information about a tender by Department of Social Development. He subsequently appealed to the Minister who also turned him down.
Mr Brummer then approached the Cape High Court, however this he did outside the 30-day period laid down in the Promotion of Access to Information Act. The High Court refused to condone his non-compliance with the 30-day period, but found section 78(2) of the Act to be unconstitutional as it did not give a person adequate time to approach a court for relief.
Mr Brummer then asked the Constitutional Court to confirm this, and to overturn the High Court's refusal to condone his non-compliance with the 30-day period, his submission was supported by the South African History Archives and was joined by the Commission as friends of the Court.
The Commission affirms that provisions such as these highlight the need to increase access to the courts and justice rights for the majority of the people in our country. The Promotion of Access to Information Act is extremely complex for unassisted and under resourced people to engage with, and the imposition of short timeframes within which to reach the courts for assistance exacerbates the situation for most.
The Commission and other stakeholders have as a result repeatedly called on Parliament and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to implement reforms in favour of creating a cheaper, simpler and quicker mechanism for dispute resolution in access to information matters.
The Commission also emphasized the relationship between access to information and the right to freedom of expression. It provided the court with statistical and substantive data based on its monitoring of public bodies which demonstrated the low levels of responsiveness to requests for information by these bodies. These low levels of responsiveness have a significant impact on transparency, service delivery and other fundamental rights like freedom of expression.
The Commission will continue to closely monitor further developments in this case.