Publications
Partners
My Vote Counts, the non-governmental organisation pursuing accountability in party political funding is now challenging the Promotion of Access to Information Act, which the Constitutional Court last year ruled was the correct way to obtain information on political donations.
This is the latest development in the NGO’s fight for transparency in political party funding.
My Vote Counts lodged its papers at the Western High Court today, requesting an order for the court to declare the promotion of access to information act [PAIA] as invalid and unconstitutional insofar as and to the extent that it failed to make provision for the continuous and systematic recording and disclosure of information regarding private funding of political parties and independent ward candidates.
My Vote Counts coordinator Janine Ogle told journalists this morning that PAIA was not capable of affording the electoral citizenry information about the way political parties vying for their votes are funded.
“That is a context with unique demands, to which PAIA does not address itself,” she said.
Ogle said PAIA’s shortfalls included the fact that disclosure under PAIA was not automatic and was triggered only once a request had been made for information;
» Disclosures were, at best, limited to the specific information requested at the specific time by a requester;
» Only existing records of information were accessible under PAIA, rather than information generally;
» There was no obligation to create records of private funding information;
» There was no obligation to ensure continuous disclosure of private funding information in respect of political parties;
» There was no obligation to maintain records of private funding information or penalties for their destruction; and
» “There are a number of grounds on which access to records may be refused, which are inconsistent with the constitution in respect of the disclosure of private funding information,” she added.
Ogle said the citizenry needs to know this information in order to make informed political choices and also “in this environment which makes it possible for corruption and dodgy dealings to take place must be regulated”.
My Vote Counts approached the Constitutional Court last year arguing that the constitutional right of access to information and the right to vote, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, required systematic disclosure of private funding to political parties. “It contends that citizens are entitled to access to information about private funding sources of political parties.”
The organisation claimed that Parliament had a constitutional obligation to enact specific legislation to mandate this disclosure, in addition to the wide general provisions of the act.
In its response, Parliament argued that the act adequately and exhaustively covered the constitutional right of access to information. Therefore, disclosure of the private funding of political parties might be requested through this existing legislation.
“Parliament contends that it has enacted several pieces of legislation that promote accountable and transparent governance,” argued the legislature.
The court dismissed My Vote Counts’ application.
On May 31 this year, the organisation, through the act, requested access to financial information from each of the 13 political parties represented in Parliament.
Only four parties responded and all four refused to disclose their funders. The rest ignored the NGO’s request.
The NGO’s Gregory Solik said it was wrong to say that My Vote Counts lost its case in the Constitutional Court.
“We didn’t. What the Constitutional Court said was that we understand your argument but we are not going to decide that today because PAIA is the piece of legislation that was passed under Section 32 of the constitution. If you think you can’t get political party information through PAIA, then you must challenge PAIA …”
“We did not challenge PAIA at the Constitutional Court, we said we want specific legislation to provide full disclosure for the funding of political parties,” said Solik.
It’s been 12 years since non-governmental organisations such as the Institute for a Democratic Alternative in South Africa [Idasa] started fighting for political parties to be transparent about their private funders.
