From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
MINISTER OF PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA v UNRECOGNISED TRADITIONAL LEADERS OF THE LIMPOPO PROVINCE
Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal
The Supreme Court of Appeal today dismissed an appeal by the Minister for Provincial and Local Government against an order directing him to allow, an association representing 46 traditional leaders, access to a report of a commission of enquiry.
During February 1996 the Premier of the then Northern (now Limpopo) Province established the Ralushai Commission to investigate disputes relating to irregularities and malpractices in the appointment of certain traditional leaders in that province. The Commission was also required to make recommendations on how such disputes could be resolved. It presented its interim report to the Premier in 1997 and that report was made public. It later presented its final report which was not made public. The Premier referred the final report to the Minister for Provincial and Local Government who intended to use it in developing a national policy on traditional leadership.
46 traditional leaders who were not recognised by the government came together to form an association known as the Unrecognised Traditional Leaders of the Limpopo Province. The association requested and was allowed access to the interim report of the Ralushai Commission. It was, however, refused access to the final report.
The information officer in the Department of Provincial and Local Government informed it that access was denied in terms of s 44(1) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 which empowers such officers, in appropriate circumstances, to refuse access to information held by the state.
The association of traditional leaders successfully applied in the Pretoria High Court for an order directing the Minister to allow it access to the report. The Minister appealed against that order. The Supreme Court of Appeal (per Jafta AJA, Mpati DP, Scott, Navsa and Heher JJA concurring) unanimously dismissed the appeal with costs.
|