paia annual reportpmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs/...chapter 9 of the...

P A I A A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 1 / 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 1

THE PROMOTION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT (PAIA) ANNUAL REPORT 2011/12


Foreword What does access to information or any of SA’s constitutional rights mean in the context of the Lonmin-

Marikana massacre? What does the right to life, to dignity, to bodily integrity, to safety and security, to

socio-economic rights mean for those who are poor, in Marikana and across our country? Apartheid’s

social engineering, in conjunction with the global economic order, has resulted in SA being one of the

most unequal countries in the world. Wealth Insight’s 2012 study shows that 86% of ultra-wealthy (or

high net worth) individuals are previously advantaged South Africans. The majority of those who are

poorest are those who were previously disadvantaged. While substantive equality and dignity is

enshrined in our Constitution, the poorest people in our country are often denied these rights.

As an institution established by the Constitution to support democracy, the South African Human Rights

Commission grapples with this reality. This year the Commission launched hearings on the right to water

and sanitation in Mpumalanga. Mpumalanga is home to the Kruger National Park. It is home to

waterfalls, wetlands and the Inyaka dam. Yet many poor communities have no access to water and in

Mpumalanga’s informal settlements, over 84% of residents have no sanitation.

At the Commission’s hearing, people have been standing up fearlessly to speak of their experiences.

They speak of the big dams like Inyaka, which are next to their communities, yet they have no water.

They speak of daughters reaching puberty and dropping out of rural schools because they have no

toilets. They say that traditional leaders, whose power will increase if Parliament adopts the Traditional

Courts Bill, often undermine their rights. They demand answers from Government about corruption of

public officials by business. They ask why mining companies are allowed to pollute the water that they

and their families rely on. They observe that businesses, including agribusiness use over 80% of all water

yet pay less per litre than households do through user fees.

SA’s Constitution enshrines the right of access to information. It is a right that is integral to all other

rights – civil, political, economic, social and cultural. It is integral to our conception of democracy.

Despite our Constitution, a culture of secrecy is still deeply entrenched, as the response to anti-

corruption whistleblowers has shown. Institutional secrecy has to be tackled if the right of access to

information is to be used as a mechanism to combat corruption in society and to make government

more socially responsive. The apartheid state frustrated efforts at obtaining information on people who

were detained, tortured and killed. Its secretive state machinery enabled the perpetuation of daily


violence, exploitation, oppression and discrimination. The Protection of State Information Bill thus has

dangerous potential to erode the supremacy of PAIA.

The objective of the Constitutional right of access to information is to create a transparent society and a

government accountable to the people. The right of access to information is a key that can be used to

unlock access to other socio-economic rights and help ensure accountability of government to the

people. This right can be as much about public service delivery as any other socio-economic right. The

extension of the right of access to information includes the right to demand information from the

private sector. As the hearings are illustrating, the nexus between government and business is often the

point at which policy choices are reoriented and where corruption occurs. It is therefore critical that the

public and private sector move beyond technical compliance with PAIA, to voluntary disclosure and

substantive compliance.

The Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), passed twelve years ago, was intended to set

standards for transparency and accountability that would, in theory, enable citizens to access records

from government and business. However, the section 32 reports analysed in this annual report shows

that while there is an increase in requests for information from the public, government readiness to

meet the demand for information remains consistently low. There are also dismal levels of compliance

with section 14 reports (the roadmap for government departments on how they implement PAIA).

Bureaucratic resistance to implement access to information rights includes the failure to provide

manuals (to ensure people-friendly access to the right); difficult requirements for processing

information requests and the ineffective PAIA enforcement mechanisms (to ensure compliance by

public and private bodies with mandatory obligations in PAIA).

Parliament and Government needs to demonstrate the necessary political will to give effect to the

Constitutional right to information for all. The widespread lack of socio-economic rights (such as the

right to water and sanitation), and civil and political rights (such as the right to peaceful protest),

demands that Parliament respond with urgency to the reports tabled every year by the Commission.

Pregs Govender

Deputy Chairperson

South African Human Rights Commission


Introduction

The South African Human Rights Commission (Commission) is an institution established in terms of chapter 9 of the Constitution to safeguard the human rights of everyone in South Africa. The Commission’s mandate is derived from both the Constitution and the Human Rights Commission Act 54 of 1994 to promote, protect and monitor the observance of human rights. As part of its function to safeguard all human rights, the Commission derives a further mandate from the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) to give effect to the constitutional right of access to information and to monitor the implementation of PAIA. This is in line with the Commission’s vision to be the focal point for human rights practice in South Africa and to be accessible to everyone. We achieve this by raising awareness on the right of access to information issues, monitoring and assessing the observance of the right of access to information, education and training as well as addressing violations of the right and seeking effective redress.

The mandate of the Commission in terms of PAIA

Section 83 of PAIA outlines in detail the factors entailed in advancing the right to information and monitoring the implementation of PAIA. It mandates the Commission to:

• Promote the right of access to information by developing a guide and educational programmes aimed at raising awareness on the right to access information;

• Assist both public and private bodies to comply with and implement PAIA;

• Conduct training for Information and Deputy Information officers;

• Assist communities in exercising their right;

• To inform and monitor legislative development and contribute to law reform by making recommendations and submissions on legislation that may have a bearing on the right to access information.

The Commission’s mandate as set out in section 83 consists of intricate factors which sum up the promotion, protection and monitoring functions of the Commission. These functions are interrelated and contribute to the overall mandate of the Commission in terms of PAIA. The Commission executes its mandate through the PAIA Unit, based at the Commission’s head office. The execution of the strategic objectives of the PAIA mandate is reported in detail below. These are: 1. Promotion:

1.1.1. Training, presentations, general advocacy and participation at regional and international fora;

1.1.2. Media Interventions; 1.1.3 Hosting of the National Information Officers Forum and Provincial Information Officers

Forum


1.1.4 Publications 1.1.5 Stakeholder Engagements

2 Protection 2.1.1 Assistance to requesters: individuals, private bodies and public bodies 2.1.2 Monitoring and response to emerging legislation and policy which adversely affects

PAIA 2.1.3 Recommendations for reform to Parliament and the Executive

3. Monitoring compliance and implementation

3.1.1 Implementation and compliance audits of public bodies 3.1.2 Formal compliance monitoring of public bodies in terms of section 32 and 14 of PAIA 3.1.3 Formal compliance monitoring of private bodies in terms of section 51

4. Institutional Compliance

4.1.1 Formal institutional compliance in terms of sections 14; 15; 16 and 32 of PAIA 4.1.2 Annual report to Parliament in terms of section 84

Promotion

Advocacy and awareness interventions

Section 83 of PAIA develops the Commission’s promotion mandate into specific deliverables. In terms of these provisions, the Commission has a duty to raise awareness on PAIA in the public and private sector and at community level. The execution of the duty to raise awareness is primarily based on workshops and other interventions geared towards linking the right to information in safeguarding other rights in the constitution, however, promotion of the right to access information can be achieved through the monitoring of compliance in government institutions and providing assistance to requesters as well. The latter are an indirect means of raising awareness as they are specifically targeted at a particular focus area.

For this reporting period, the Commission directed its resources towards training Deputy Information Officers (DIOs) and local communities. The private sector was excluded due to resource constraints that hampered the commission from extending training to this sector.

Despite financial and human resource constraints, the Commission achieved all the promotional outputs set out in its performance plan. For the 2011/2012 reporting period, 33 workshops were conducted. A total of 1065 DIOs were reached through the training sessions and forums held during this reporting period. In addition to the workshops, 2 Provincial Information Officers Forums were held and the annual National Information Officers Forum was hosted accordingly.


Training DIOs was the primary focus area of the Commission in order to improve the dismal response levels of government departments to information requests from the public, as well as to enhance the implementation of PAIA and to respond to challenges identified in the implementation of PAIA. Statistics reflected below in the section 32 reports provides a snapshot of how public bodies have responded to PAIA requests.

To ensure efficient response to the issues identified, the Commission adopted a strategic approach that will secure the buy-in of executives in various public bodies on the importance of the right to access information and implementation of PAIA respectively. It is expected that this pyramid approach will ensure that there is a nationwide coordinated approach to compliance with PAIA in public institutions.

While the need to secure buy-in of executive management in public institutions is critical, the Commission was cognizant of the fact that executives in public bodies may not have sufficient time to attend a full day training session. In this regard, briefing sessions were held, where an overview of PAIA and the obligations of public bodies were outlined. The sessions focused on the need for public institutions to respond to PAIA obligations, to ensure that PAIA forms part of public bodies’ operational and strategic plans, to ensure PAIA is incorporated into the work of each public body and that financial and human resources are made available to ensure proper implementation of PAIA. The impact of these briefings can be seen in the number of public bodies that have responded to the obligation to comply. Public bodies such as the Department of Labour, Department of Communications, the Industrial Development Corporation and the National Research Foundation are some of the institutions that have since the Commission’s interventions, put in place mechanisms to secure compliance and implement PAIA accordingly. These executive management briefing sessions have therefore been effective. These meetings which were often attended by the heads of the public institutions ensured that all business units of the respective public bodies were reached more effectively and guaranteed awareness on PAIA at an executive level.

In addition to training sessions for DIOs, a community development project was embarked upon. The Commission, in collaboration with the South African History Archives (SAHA) identified a community in the Diepsloot area for training on PAIA. The objective of the community training was to educate community members on their right to access information and how this right can be used to assert other socio economic rights. The session sought to empower the community by presenting the right to access information as a mechanism to hold government accountable for delivery of services and accessing basic services such as water, sanitation and education. The right to information was further presented as a means through which community members are able to participate in forums such as Imbizos and make various informed decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods. The session further sought to identify community leaders with the objective of providing them with further extensive training so as to empower them to take the lead in ensuring that awareness on access to information in the community is sustained and continued. The training session was conducted over a period of three days. The Commission hopes to replicate these training sessions in other communities across South Africa.

Consultation audits are other ways of contributing to the promotion mandate of the Commission. They facilitate a process of engagement and serve as a means to test the veracity of the content of section 32


reports and section 14 manuals. They provide a platform to engage with key personnel in public institutions and are more in-depth as they entail a full day meeting with officials of a public institution to address the implementation of PAIA.

Also contributing to our promotion mandate are executive management briefings. The briefings were conducted through a presentation on PAIA at Executive Committee meetings of public bodies as well as at cluster meetings. Compliance and implementation since the launch of these audits and briefings have slightly improved. A detailed report on compliance audits is provided below.

Other awareness raising interventions were workshops. The workshops have been successfully hosted over the years and have contributed significantly to our awareness raising interventions. Workshop sessions, unlike the audit consultation and the management briefs reach a large component of a public institution though these sessions are often informed by the engagement with public bodies through the audit consultations and briefing meetings. The prior engagements assist public institutions to identify personnel who will be responsible for PAIA compliance and what sort of training is required. The personnel to whom training sessions are provided are often responsible for the practical implementation of PAIA. Through the work of these personnel, the policies of public institutions are made practical; therefore training of these personnel is crucial to proper and efficient implementation of PAIA.

The three awareness raising components-management briefings, audit consultations and workshops-are complementary and enable the Commission to reach more institutions simultaneously. This approach ensures that both managers and personnel are aware of their obligations in terms of PAIA, and as such, a more coordinated implementation of PAIA obligations is achieved within each public institution.

Though there was no specific awareness raising intervention organized for the private sector, the Commission as a result of the compliance requirement for private bodies to submit manuals in terms of section 51 of PAIA was able to reach numerous private sector actors. Assistance to the private sector was provided telephonically and via email. A detailed report on the private sector compliance is provided below.

Material Development and Publications

A community tool on access to information was developed which is aimed at simplifying how PAIA works in practice to enable communities to assert their right of access to information independently. The community tool is designed to be a tool and training guide. It is envisaged that the tool will create a better understanding of PAIA and further enable community members to continue training sessions in their respective communities. The development of this tool ensures that awareness on PAIA is sustained and that communities are empowered to the extent that the dependence on the Commission is minimized.

The PAIA unit publishes a newsletter every quarter. The ‘PAIA infoshare’ is used as a mechanism to raise awareness and keep DIOs abreast with developments. The newsletter also serves the purpose of


responding to questions and challenges faced by DIOs through the “frequently asked questions” section to enable other DIOs who experience similar challenges to learn through peer sharing.

Media Interventions

Media interventions for this reporting period were primarily based on the Protection of State Information Bill. Media statements on the Commission’s stance on the Bill were issued during submission periods.

Other media interventions were on the National Information Officers Forum and the Provincial Information Officers Forums respectively.

The media was also used as a means to raise awareness on the compliance obligations of public bodies. The services of the Mail and Guardian and the Sunday Times were engaged to issue reminders on compliance with section 32 of PAIA.

Usage of the media is a strategic means of raising awareness on PAIA and this is demonstrated in the increased number of public body submissions since the use of the media to issue reminders on submission of section 32 reports.

The National and Provincial Information Officers Forum

2011 saw the hosting of yet another National Information Officers Forum (NIOF). The NIOF is aimed at celebrating the international “right to know day”. The NIOF has become a prominent feature in the community of access to information practitioners bringing together implementers, practitioners and experts to network on access to information. The NIOF provides a platform for engagement, allowing implementers to express concerns and challenges faced when implementing PAIA. It further enables DIOs to share best practices on implementing PAIA. Having reached the ten year mark, the 2011 NIOF reminded implementers on the importance of access to information in enforcing constitutional principles, good governance and improved service delivery.

The NIOF was attended by Member of Parliament, Honourable Llewellyn Landers, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information for the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, Adv Pansy Tlakula, and Gauteng High Court Judge, Justice J Kollapen.

Rationale and objectives of the NIOF

Through the NIOF, the SAHRC and its stakeholders seek to: • provide capacity building tools and practical insights to support implementation for

information officers (IO)s and DIOs; • assist IOs and DIOs to keep abreast of developments in PAIA and international trends in

access to information; • create networking opportunities for DIOs and experts in access to information; • to provide academics and policy makers insight on practical challenges on

implementation;


• show case best practices; and reward best performing DIOs.

The Golden Key Awards Ceremony (GKA) takes place immediately after the NIOF. The GKA research is conducted on an annual basis to assess the levels of compliance on PAIA in selected public institutions. The GKA was initiated to reward and acknowledge DIOs who have been implementing PAIA in their institutions. It also seeks to encourage non compliant public bodies to initiate compliance within their respective institutions. Since its inception in 2007, the GKA has made significant contribution to enhance awareness on PAIA, and has been instrumental in initiating compliance and implementation. Provided below are details of the assessment process for the research and the recipient of awards for 2011/12. Assessment Categories Category A: Statutory Compliance Statutory compliance entailed assessing the compliance of public bodies with the compulsory obligations stipulated in PAIA. Selected institutions were assessed on the availability of a roadmap and compliance with section 32. A roadmap describes the process for submitting a request for information; it provides details of the office that handles requests and indicates what categories of information are held by an institution – identifying the records which can be disclosed and those that cannot be disclosed. It should include full contact details of the information officer and allow a requester to submit requests by email, telephone, fax, post and in person. The roadmap should be published in the government directory and website of the institution in question. It should also be available at the institution’s front office. We asked for:

§ The PAIA manual according to Section 14 of PAIA; and § The 2010/2011 report submitted to the SAHRC in terms of Section 32 of PAIA.

Category B: Records management This category focuses on the manner in which records are generated, organized and stored. A system must be in place to ensure that all records held by the institution are properly documented and organized so that records can be easily identified and accessible when a request for information is received. Our guidelines on what constituted a record and how institutional correspondence, discussions and materials are documented is informed by the targeted information reflected below. We requested:

§ The Records Management Policy; § The job description and key performance areas of the Records Manager; and § The description of Records Manager’s responsibilities in terms of PAIA.


Category C: Internal mechanisms Internal mechanisms refer to systems put in place by a public institution to facilitate a response to a request for information. These mechanisms include procedures for documenting requests, processing requests on time, assisting requestors and voluntary publishing of records. We requested:

§ The internal procedures, guidelines, policy document or plan for implementation of PAIA; § Any document detailing the system used for recording and reporting on both the number of requests received and how they were responded to; § Any documentary evidence that frontline staff (e.g. receptionists and building access personnel) had been instructed or trained on how to handle requests and where to refer them; and § A copy of any internal instruction or policy document that encourages regular publication of records, among others.

Category D: Resources This refers to the human and financial resources allocated to PAIA implementation as well as an institution’s commitment towards enabling staff to promote the right to know. We requested:

• Budget information for implementation of PAIA or an explanation of how PAIA related activities are financed; • List of all members of staff who are tasked with handling requests for information in terms of PAIA; or • Any document containing information on the PAIA unit, or equivalent structure, established to monitor and coordinate the implementation of the Act; and • A description of incentives in place to reward staff compliance with PAIA and sanctions that are applied for non-compliance (e.g. monetary and other incentives/rewards, compulsory training, code of conduct etc.).

Research sample The research sample comprised of 15 national, 21 provincial departments and 19 municipalities. All provinces were assessed in the 2011/12 year and a minimum of 2 departments per province was assessed, save Limpopo and Gauteng which had 4 departments assessed. In the local government sector, the Western Cape had 4 municipalities, unlike the other provinces where only 2 municipalities were reviewed. The awards were given in the following categories:

• the Openness and Responsiveness of an institution • Deputy Information Officer of the year • Requester Award • Best Media usage/engagement with PAIA


Award Recipients

CATEGORY INSTITUTION RECIPIENT

Best Overall

Institution

Limpopo

Treasury

Best DIO Limpopo

Treasury

Consistent Top

Performer

Theewatersk

loof

Municipality

Marelize Faul

Best Media

Engagement

News24 Gcina Ntsaluba

The Provincial Information Officers Forum

The Provincial Information Officers Forum (PIOF) initiative was launched in 2010 to heighten awareness on PAIA and to enhance compliance and implementation. Intended to secure compliance and buy-in from public officials, the Commission identified provinces where compliance levels were low or non-existent. The PIOF was held in the Northern Cape. A total of 50 DIOs were reached through the PIOF.

PIOFs held in previous financial years yielded excellent results, which led to improved compliance in Kwa- Zulu Natal, Free State and the Eastern Cape. The Commission, being cognizant of the need to sustain momentum in the provinces where PIOFs were held, initiated the establishment of committees of DIOs within the provinces to sustain compliance, identify challenges in the implementation of PAIA and communicate these challenges through the National Coordinating Committee. These challenges were then used by the Commission to identify provisions in the legislation that require reform and to develop educational materials and programmes to respond to the identified challenges that hamper implementation.

The Commission will continue hosting the PIOFs and increase awareness raising interventions to ensure that awareness on PAIA is spread throughout the country and compliance with PAIA and the implementation thereof is achieved.

Protection

Assistance to requesters


The protection aspect requires the Commission to assist members of the public to assert their right to access information through the request mechanisms outlined in PAIA, and to act on behalf of a requester where necessary, using powers conferred upon the Commission by PAIA and the Human Rights Act 54 of 19941. Assistance provided by the Commission includes lodging request for information on behalf of requesters. This comes in the form of consultations, advisory meetings with requesters and where necessary, assisting requesters to obtain access to the information requested. An example of this is the ongoing advisory role that the Commission is playing in a prolonged matter between a Complainant and Legal Aid South Africa (LASA). The requester had previously sought assistance from the Commission to obtain information he had requested from LASA relating to a job application. A number of related records were released in part and others refused. The requester was however not satisfied with LASA’s general response to his request and brought the inaccuracy of LASA’s section 32 report to the Commission’s attention particularly with regard to some of his requests that had not been reported on. The requester has since proceeded to Court to litigate this matter against LASA. The Commission continues to monitor the developments in this matter.

Assistance extends to DIOs and private sector actors as well. DIOs are often assisted in applying and interpreting PAIA, providing legal opinions and responding to general enquiries on PAIA.

Private sector assistance is primarily based on the compliance requirement in section 51 of PAIA. This reporting period saw an influx in private sector enquiries due to the moratorium that was set to expire in December 2011.

Monitoring and assessment of requests for assistance enables the Commission to identify trends in the use of PAIA and the extent to which PAIA is used.

1 Section 9 of the Human Rights Commission’s Act 54 of 1994


Category of requesters

Nature in which requests were made

Number of requesters assisted

Nature of request Trends

Deputy Information Officers

Email and telephonic

138 Ø Compliance

Ø Application and interpretation

Ø Legal opinions

The increase in the number of requests for assistance from DIOs indicates increased activity within public institutions, in particular, compliance and implementation

The increase indicates that awareness on the right to information is heightened. A request from public institutions on interpretation and application of PAIA signifies an increase on requests for information lodged.

Private Individuals Email, telephones and consultations

154 Ø Assistance with lodging requests for information

Assistance provided to individuals reflects confidence of requesters to use PAIA to access information.

Private Bodies Email/telephonic

35 662 Ø Section 51 compliance

Ø Interpretation and application

Majority of the assistance provided to private bodies was based on section 51 compliance. The expiry of the moratorium led to the increase in requests for assistance.

Requests for assistance included assistance with interpreting provisions of PAIA applicable to private


institutions and the interpretation of regulations.

Section 51 compliance enquiries were not only centered around interpretation of PAIA but requests on the actual drafting of the manual.

Generic templates were developed to assist private institutions comply.

While majority of requests from private institutions were on section 51, other enquiries were on assistance with regard to responding to requests for information, requests for copies of the prescribed request forms and the fee schedule.

The enquiries based on requests lodged with private institutions indicate an increase in the submission of requests to private institutions. It further demonstrates that private institutions are becoming more aware of the right to information and are becoming more responsive.


Law Reform, Legislative Development and Case Law monitoring

Section 83 obliges the Commission to monitor legislative development that directly affect access to information, contribute to the reform and modification of PAIA and the common law (where necessary), by making submissions to relevant institutions on provisions of PAIA that require reform. The objective of this obligation is to ensure that emerging legislation does not contradict the principles of access to information and to ensure the harmonization of laws accordingly. The first ten years of access to information law have been characterized by significant legislative development and case law alike. In keeping abreast with these developments, the Commission monitored national, regional and international developments on access to information. The Commission’s activities around legislative development have been informed by its’ mandate to contribute to the development of legislation having a direct impact on access to information.

The Protection of State Information Bill

The past financial year has seen the revival of the Protection of State Information and the Protection of Personal Information Bills. The Commission made substantive submissions on the Protection of State Information Bill. Submissions made by the Commission sought to ensure that the right to access information is not limited unjustifiably and to ensure that the Bill is in harmony with PAIA and the principles of transparency. Oral and written submissions were presented before the Ad Hoc Committee on the Protection of State Information Bill.

At the crux of the Commission’s submission was the need to ensure that the right to access information and freedom of expression were not compromised. In addition, the submissions made by the Commission raised concerns on the sanctions imposed by the Bill, the impact of the Bill on research and institutions of learning, the classification regime and the public interest.

In its submissions, the Commission noted amendments to the Bill during Parliamentary debate; however certain areas of concern remained unaddressed. In this regard, our submissions placed emphasis on critical issues that will have an adverse effect on human rights if the Bill is passed in its current form. The submissions of the Commission recognized the need to protect state information. Having noted the need to provide protection for certain categories of information, the Commission raised concerns on the extent to which the right of access to information and freedom of expression were being limited. Making reference to the limitations clause in the Constitution, the Commission stated that the limitation of both access to information and freedom of expression in the Bill was unconstitutional and less restrictive means to limit these rights could be adopted.

The submissions of the Commission further cautioned on the authority given to public officials in classifying information and the classification regime as a whole. The Bill authorizes heads of state organs or their delegates to classify information; however it does not provide clear directives on the categories of classification. The broad definitions exacerbate the uncertainty surrounding classification.

Linked to classification is the issue of sanctions. The Bill sets out stringent sanctions for the disclosure of protected information and the use of the information. The sanctions in effect apply to the holder of


information and the end user. Chapter 11 of the Bill sets out instances in which the sanctions will be invoked; it was submitted that the provisions of chapter 11 are harsh and excessive when compared to international regimes.

The Commission submitted that a public interest clause be inserted. The Commission stated that a public interest clause can be used as a defence for releasing protected information. PAIA recognizes the need to protect the public interest; as a result, the public interest clause permits the disclosure of protected information if the public interest outweighs the need to protect the information. In its submissions, the Commission stated that the Bill in its current form prevents the flow of information and is inconsistent with PAIA.

In general, the submissions made by the Commission cautioned against creating a system that defies constitutional principles. In this regard, the Commission unequivocally described the Bill as unconstitutional.

Amendments to PAIA

The Commission’s contribution to law reform extends to annual submissions to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. The Commission in its submissions made recommendations on provisions in the legislation that require reform. The submissions were aimed to ensure that PAIA remains relevant in order to enhance its effectiveness.

Recommendations submitted for the reporting period 2011/2012 were based on newly identified challenges and recurring matters. The recommendations addressed the issue of section 51 compliance by private bodies, non compliance with section 32, the penalty clause in section 90, and the definitions of trade unions and information officer in PAIA.

Section 51 recommendations have been tabled since 2003 and have to date not been fully responded to. Since the operation of PAIA, compliance by the private sector with section 51 has been marked with difficulty and not properly regulated. In its first submission, the Commission recommended that a clear directive be issued on categories of private sector actors required to submit the section 51 manual. The rationale for this directive was based on the impact of the section 51 requirement on small business entities and the Commission. Small businesses would face harsh administrative costs in compiling the manual and would hamper the growth of the business entities. The challenge posed on the Commission is that the Commission itself does not have resources to receive section 51 manuals. The Commission due to limited resources does not have the infrastructure to house the manuals; neither does it have sufficient human capital to review the manuals.

A moratorium was issued by the then Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development in 2005 to respond to the challenges highlighted above. The moratorium created an exemption for certain business entities and was set to expire in December 2011. The moratorium did not fully respond to the challenges identified by the Commission and the Commission requested that the moratorium clearly pronounce on the status of small entities. This was informed by the fact that there was uncertainty on what will transpire post 2011.


The Commission made vigorous enquiries to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development in 2010 and 2011 on the moratorium noting that it was due to expire in December 2011. A timeous response was not obtained from the Department, thus in 2011, the Commission received over 200 000 manuals. Furthermore, the Commission has been inundated with calls from the private sector. The extension of the date a day before the expiry date was too little too late as the Commission continues to receive manuals and enquiries. The result of this has been that the Commission as a result of the high volumes of manuals received has an additional time consuming responsibility to register, review and house manuals in excess of 200 000.

Other submissions related to compliance in the public sector. Section 32 of PAIA places an obligation on public bodies to make annual submissions to the Commission on PAIA requests.

The Commission’s compliance monitoring has over the past ten years revealed that compliance with this requirement is extremely low in the public sector. Low compliance levels were inevitable at the time of the inception and operation of PAIA; however, almost 12 years after the enactment of PAIA, compliance rates remain abysmally low. The status of compliance is at this point unacceptable and requires review. In this regard, the Commission recommended that section 90 of PAIA be amended to make provision for the penalization of failure to comply with section 32. At present, section 90 makes provision for a penalty against an information officer who does not compile a section 14 manual. Although section 14 compliance is mandatory, Section 32 compliance is equally important and warrants the need to penalize non-compliance.

The Commission further sought clarity on the reporting time frame. At present, PAIA requires public bodies to submit reports in terms of section 32 to the Commission at the end of every financial year. The ambiguity of this section has caused difficulty in regulating timeframes for submission. Financial year periods are not the same within the three tiers of government. The financial year at national and provincial government commences in March and ends in April. The latter is not the same in local government which ends in July. The Commission has in this regard interpreted the financial year in terms of its reporting period to avoid confusion. While this interim response may have helped, it does not provide a comprehensive solution that takes into account the interests of all parties involved.

The Commission further recommended that the public interest clause in section 46 of PAIA be reviewed. As it stands, the requirements that need to be satisfied for information to be released in the public interest are stringent and unduly limit access to information. In this regard, the Commission recommended that less restrictive means be applied.

The Commission also recommended that the definition of an information officer requires review and clear interpretation. Confusion on the identity of the information officer has had an adverse effect on the submission of section 32 reports and section 14 manuals. At the provincial level, the Director General at the Office of the Premier is considered as the Information officer for the entire province, which means compliance by all provincial departments would be administered by the Director General. This interpretation creates confusion and adversely affects compliance and proper administration of PAIA.


On the regional and international fora, access to information developments that are being monitored and can feed into the Commission’s overall objective to realize the right of access to information of everyone in South Africa includes the Open Government Partnership which the President, Jacob Zuma, signed onto and committed to implement. While the implementation of the action plan developed by the Executive is still pending, the Commission commends the work of the Open Government Partnership in advancing transparency and accountability in government. The Commission lends its support to this campaign and efforts of the partnership to advance transparency in the public sector.

Development in Case Law

On 29 November 2011, the constitutional court handed down a landmark judgment in the President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Mail & Guardian (M&G) Media Ltd2, where the M&G had requested in terms of PAIA, a report commissioned by the then President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki to report on the controversial election that had taken place in Zimbabwe.

The request for access to the report was denied by the Presidency on one of the mandatory grounds in terms of PAIA which allows access to the record of a public body to be refused in terms of section 41 and 44 of PAIA. The grounds for refusal were that disclosure of the report would reveal information supplied in confidence by or on behalf of another state or international organization contrary to section 41(1)(b)(i) of PAIA; and secondly, that the report had been prepared for the purpose of assisting the President to formulate executive policy on Zimbabwe.

The requester (M&G) argued that the President in his official capacity as a public body had failed to discharge its statutory burden of proof as outlined in terms of section 81(3) of PAIA which states that the entity refusing to grant a request for information in terms of PAIA and relies on one or more of the listed mandatory grounds of refusal has the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that such refusal does indeed fall within the parameters of the said ground/s of refusal and is justified in terms of PAIA taking into account the public interest and other contributory factors that are prescribed in terms of PAIA.

The High Court found that the reports on Zimbabwe fell within the scope and ambit of PAIA and the applicants were well within their rights to request access to such documents and as such the report should be released.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the state argued that the grounds for refusal was justified in terms of Section 41 and 44 of PAIA and this was further strengthened by PAIA in its preamble by making provisions for instances where access to information could be limited hence giving the state the powers to limit the scope in terms of what information may be granted to the public.

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court3 to grant access to the requested report and held that the state had indeed failed to discharge its statutory obligations in terms of PAIA.

2 (CCT 03/11) [2011] ZACC 32; 2012 (2) BCLR 181 (CC); 2012 (2) SA 50 (CC) (29 November 2011) 3 North Gauteng High Court


This decision was appealed to the Constitutional Court and the state contended that if such records were to be disclosed, it would defeat the purpose of Chapter 4 of PAIA, which is to protect from disclosure, certain information that if disclosed, could cause material harm to amongst other things, the defence, security and international relations of the Republic, the economic interests and financial welfare of the Republic, the commercial activities of public bodies, and the formulation of policy and the taking of decisions by public bodies in the exercise of powers or performance of duties conferred or imposed by law. The state further argued that both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the High Court erred in finding that it had not discharged its statutory burden imposed by section 81(3) of PAIA after relying on personal affidavits submitted on behalf of the Presidency stating that such report indeed fell within the mandatory grounds relied upon. It was argued by M&G that the records could be disclosed to a judge of the high court in terms of section 80 of PAIA to determine whether such document if disclosed to the public would indeed cause material harm. Section 80 provides that any court hearing an application, or an appeal against a decision on that application, may examine any record of a public or private body to which PAIA applies, and no such record may be withheld from the court on any grounds.

The Constitutional Court after taking into account the access to information laws and jurisprudence of the USA, Canada and Australia in the reasons for judgment ruled that the matter be referred back to the High Court to start de novo and that the disclosure in terms of section 80 of PAIA be applied accordingly.

The case of Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa (IDC) Ltd v PFE International Inc (BVI) dealt with access to information requested in terms of PAIA for the purpose of legal proceedings. Section 7 of PAIA provides that where legal proceedings have already been instituted, PAIA is not applicable, in particular, where the production of documents in terms of the proceeding is provided in any other law. Rule 30 of the Uniform Rules of Court govern the production of documents after pleadings have closed in any civil matter. The interpretation of these provisions was the issue before the South Gauteng High court in this case. After pleadings had closed and the matter was ripe to go to trial in the High court, the respondents (PFE) sent a request in terms of section 18 of PAIA to the IDC for access to records and information which was held by the IDC. The PAIA request was deemed to be refused because there was no response to the PAIA request. The applicants argued that PAIA could be used to request and access information regardless of whether the matter had already been enrolled or not in Court. The respondent argued on the other hand that in such instance, information should be requested using the Uniform rules of the Court in line with section 7(1) (c) of PAIA which states that PAIA does not apply to a record of a public body or a private body and the production of or access to their records for the purpose of civil or criminal proceedings which have commenced and where access to the said document is provided for in any other law. The high court held that information sought subsequent to having instituted legal proceedings must be done in terms of the Uniform Rules of court in line with the Supreme Court Act and not through PAIA. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal holding that PAIA may only be used in legal proceedings if in the opinion of the court the exclusion of such records would be detrimental to the interest of justice. Both cases on PAIA in this financial year dealt with expanding both the procedural and substantive regimes of PAIA. Substantively, the M&G case provided clarity on when reliance can be placed on PAIA


exemptions by public bodies to deny access to information and procedurally, the IDC case provided guidance on the role of PAIA in accessing information during legal proceedings. Monitoring

The monitoring aspect of the Commission’s mandate obliges the Commission to monitor compliance by public institutions with the mandatory obligations in PAIA.

Compliance Monitoring

Audits

Compliance audits are a critical mechanism through which compliance with PAIA is assessed. The audit process creates an opportunity for direct liaison with officials of public bodies. Compliance audits test the veracity of PAIA compliance in public institutions and the result is that through compliance audits, implementation is tested on a practical level to ascertain the reality of PAIA delivery within public institutions. Compliance audits are thus instrumental in identifying trends in the public sector, identifying challenges in the implementation of PAIA and testing the readiness of institutions to deliver on their PAIA mandate accordingly. The outcomes of these audits inform awareness raising interventions and the Commission’s responses to challenges in the implementation of PAIA.

Objectives of the Compliance Audit

The objectives of the audit are achieved by testing the following:

• Operational readiness of institutions to implement PAIA:

- Inclusion of PAIA in departments’ strategic plans

- Incorporation of PAIA into information sharing forums and Imbizos

- Allocation of financial resources for the implementation of PAIA

- Appointment of personnel to administer PAIA and levels of accountability

- Inclusion of PAIA duties in the performance agreement of the DIO

- Internal training for all personnel on PAIA

- Development and adoption of systems and processes to handle requests for information

• Mandatory compliance and reporting obligations;

• Records Management practices.

Audit Selection process


Public bodies have in the past been randomly selected for auditing. However, a review of the audit methodology and the levels of compliance have led to a change in the selection process. Compliance rates have in all tiers of government been considerably low, however, close monitoring has shown that compliance levels in the local government sector are abysmal. Noting the consistency in non compliance in local government, the Commission decided to engage offices of the Premier and the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs to ensure that compliance in local government is secured.

The selection of national government bodies is guided by compliance rates at national level and the nature of the work done by a particular public body. While the need to audit all national institutions is pertinent, institutions responsible for socio economic rights and service delivery were prioritized. The rationale for this selection process is based on the fact that the right to access information is closely linked to service delivery. Furthermore, the objectives of access to information and the Batho Pele principles place access to information at the centre of good governance and efficient service delivery. The audits therefore not only sought to test compliance but to harness awareness on PAIA and its link to service delivery.

Audit Procedure

The audits undertaken are initiated by sending an audit notification letter to the public institution to be audited. The notice is accompanied by a questionnaire which is aimed at establishing the status of PAIA implementation in the respective public institution. The questionnaire is designed to test the awareness of public institutions on their obligations in terms of PAIA, determine steps taken by the public institution to ensure that PAIA is implemented accordingly, and to test the public institution’s compliance rates.

Completed audit questionnaires are submitted to the Commission for consideration and analysis. A meeting between the Commission and the public institution being audited is consequently held to further discuss responses to questions outlined in the questionnaire. In this regard, the Commission undertakes an assessment of implementation at a practical level. The assessment is divided into two phases and involves two methods. The first phase of the assessment is undertaken prior to the meeting with the public institution. This phase entails lodging telephonic enquiries on PAIA. The enquiry is aimed at testing whether the identity of the Deputy Information Officer of the public institution is known by all staff and whether a process to assist requesters lodge requests for information is in place. The second phase involves inspections conducted in loco; the inspection includes testing frontline personnel on their ability to assist requesters, to check whether request forms and the section 14 manual is available at the reception area and the general accessibility of the public institution by members of the public .

The assessment plays a critical role in testing the accuracy of the responses provided in the questionnaire and determining awareness levels within the public institution.

Audit Findings and recommendations


Findings of the audits undertaken continue to reveal low levels of compliance and implementation. Trends that have been identified since the piloting of the audit process in 2007 are still evident to date. Whilst there have been improvements, the number of non compliant public institutions outweighs the number of compliant institutions. The summary of the findings provided below will provide further details on specific focus areas and a general overview of audit findings.

Summary of the audit findings for the 2011/2012 reporting period

The general finding across the board was that compliance and implementation was low and in certain instances non-existent.

ü Operational readiness to implement PAIA

- Inclusion of PAIA in the operational plans and strategic output plans

The above focus area provides a global outlook of a public institution’s readiness and ability to execute its duties prescribed by PAIA.

The inclusion of PAIA in operational and strategic plans translates into a public institution recognizing the right to access information and its role in entrenching principles of good governance and accountability. It further demonstrates a public institution understands access to information as a tool that enhances service delivery; therefore PAIA is considered as a deliverable that is tantamount to other service delivery outputs. This perspective on PAIA will then feed into development of policies that recognize PAIA and the allocation of resources to PAIA implementation.

The audits did not illustrate the scene depicted above. Consultation with officials showed the lack of awareness on PAIA and the obligations of public bodies in terms of PAIA. The lack of awareness led to PAIA being responded to on an ad hoc basis and was not given sufficient attention. Furthermore, PAIA was not considered as a deliverable; therefore it was not included in the operational and strategic plans of public institutions. The exclusion of PAIA from the outputs of the public institution meant that PAIA was not integrated into the work of the public institution.

- Incorporation of PAIA into information sharing forums and Imbizos

This focus area is most applicable at local government level. Local government is at the forefront of service delivery and can be considered as the first interface between community members and government as a whole. This is particularly evident in the delivery of services which is informed by the Integrated Development Plan (IDP). IDPs provide an overview of how basic services are going to be provided to communities. Noting the importance of the IDP and the impact it has on communities, information sharing is a critical requirement. In this regard, information sharing sessions and Imbizos should be carried out in accordance with PAIA objectives. PAIA encourages public institutions to make information automatically available. Taking into consideration that participation in Imbizos is open to communities, automatic disclosure of records pertaining to IDPs will enable communities to make informed decisions and scrutinize policies of public institutions. The incorporation of PAIA into


information sessions and using PAIA as a basis for the structuring of Imbizos will enhance the information sharing sessions.

The outcome of the audits demonstrates the isolation of PAIA from information sharing platforms. The primary reason for this is the fact that PAIA is not seen as relevant or part of the work of the public institution, therefore, due consideration to PAIA is not accorded. This scenario is apparent through all tiers of government and gravely affects the implementation of PAIA.

- Allocation of financial resources for the implementation of PAIA

- Appointment of personnel to administer PAIA and levels of accountability

- Inclusion of PAIA duties in the performance agreement of the DIO

The three focal areas listed above are directly linked to the duty of public institutions to appoint a DIO as prescribed in section 17 of PAIA.

The audit findings identified differing responses to the requirement to appoint a DIO as prescribed in section 17. The first response is a situation where the requirement in section 17 is fully responded to, and the other is where there is partial response. In this instance, some institutions have a DIO however the delegation is not in writing. In addition, the duties of the DIO are not reflected on the job description of the DIO, neither are they reflected in the outputs of the public institution. The problem with this set up is that there are no mechanisms of accountability and means to measure the delivery or non-delivery of duties relating to PAIA. Compliance of the public body with section 17 is therefore flawed. PAIA deliverables of a DIO cannot be measured if PAIA is not reflected in operational plans of a public institution and as a result cannot be included in the job description of the appointed DIO. In such a case, allocation of resources for implementation of PAIA cannot be justified. The result therefore is that PAIA is dealt with on an ad hoc basis.

In this regard, the need to include PAIA in a public body’s operational plan is crucial. Recognition of this will inform the development of systems for the administration of PAIA and allocation of resources.

ü Records management policies and practices

The assessment of records management policies and practices of public bodies is informed by the critical role of records management in the implementation of PAIA. Records management directly impacts a public institution’s ability to respond to requests for information in accordance with timeframes set out in PAIA and compliance with section 14 and 15 accordingly.

The management of the records of a public body is guided by the file plan of institutions. Records management therefore directs the flow and dissemination of information of a public institution. The need to modify and adapt records management policies to PAIA is of critical importance.

Audit findings on records management were somewhat different to other focus areas. The audit assesses records management policies of public institutions to ensure that the policies are in line with


the objectives of PAIA. It is crucial to note that records management is regulated by the National Archives Act 43 of 1996 which may have an impact on some PAIA requirements. Such a situation is evident where a public institution has developed a file plan to regulate the management of records and the dissemination of information which satisfies the requirement to have a policy. However, the implementation of that policy has not begun because the file has not been approved as required by the National Archives Act. In this regard, the records management component can be regarded as partially satisfied.

Other findings on records management related to systems used by public officials to house records which were complex. In particular, officials indicated that electronic systems were challenging, therefore the implementation of the systems were prolonged.

Noting the complexities of records management, the audit was used to raise awareness on the role of records management in PAIA implementation.

ü Compliance reporting

Thirteen institutions were audited in the period 2011/2012. The compliance rate of the institutions was based on their submission of section 32 reports and the section 14 manuals. Compliance monitoring outcomes demonstrated that 90 per cent of the institutions audited were not compliant with either section 32 and 14, and did not have systems in place to implement PAIA. This trend is common across the public sector. The compliance status of a public body on section 32 was determined by the submissions for the period 2010/2011 and compliance of the public body over the past three years. A large percentage of the audited institutions were repeat offenders. Reasons given for non compliance were lack of awareness and the absence of systems to track and record requests for information lodged in terms of PAIA. Other reasons given for failure to comply were the absence of resources to monitor requests for information.

-Section 14

Section 14 compliance was tested on both submission and actual availability of the manual. The Commission is cognizant of the fact that some institutions may have section 14 manuals in place but have not submitted these to the Commission. As a result, section 14 monitoring is not solely based on manuals submitted, but by the availability of the manual at the public institution’s offices as prescribed by PAIA. The findings on section 14 compliance are similar to those of section 32 monitoring. The section 14 status in the audited institutions comprised of three categories. The first category comprised of institutions that do not have a manual, the second had institutions that have section 14 manuals but were out dated and were never submitted to the Commission, the third category had a group of public institutions in the provincial government sector that had submitted manuals to the offices of the Premier; however, the manuals were not submitted to the Commission. This is a result of the misinterpretation of a DIO in provincial government. PAIA defines an information officer as the head of a national, provincial or local government institution. Hence, proper application and interpretation of PAIA would be that the head (Head of Department) of every provincial department is the information officer. Misinterpretation of this definition has resulted in public officials assuming that the director


general (DG) at the office of the Premier is the information officer for the entire province. As a result, provincial departments submit section 14 manuals and in certain instances section 32 reports to the DG. The problem arises therefore when the DG does not submit the manuals to the Commission. This then results in provincial departments being deemed as non compliant.

Conclusion

The overall findings reveal that implementation is generally low across all tiers of government. Reasons for the low implementation and compliance levels is attributable to a lack of awareness, adequate resources and the lack of buy-in from executive management of public institutions to ensure that PAIA is implemented accordingly.

Mandatory Compliance

Section 32 Compliance

All public bodies have an obligation to submit to the Commission a report in terms of section 32. The report provides information on the number of requests for information processed by public bodies within a particular reporting period.

Section 32 compliance is critical in measuring implementation of PAIA in public bodies. The information provided in section 32 is statistical and provides a snapshot of PAIA activity within institutions. The information extracted from these reports is valuable and enables assessment of public institutions; however, it is limited. It does not make room for a detailed assessment of the usage of PAIA.

One of the requirements of the section 32 report is to provide the number of requests submitted. This requirement is not qualified to provide details on the nature of requests made, therefore, while it can establish PAIA usage through the number of requests submitted, it cannot establish categories of information sought. It cannot be determined whether information requests were for personal information, requests on tenders or any other information. The blanket requirement limits the ability to establish trends in requests submitted. This is also applicable to the requirement to indicate the number of requests for information that were granted in the public interest. There is no requirement to reflect the category of the information that was released and how it related to the public interest. This limited information does not assist in measuring the potential in satisfying all the requirements of the public interest clause which is deemed stringent and restrictive.

Compliance rates have not reached a satisfactory level taking into consideration the number of years in which PAIA has been operational. While compliance levels are low across the board, local government remains the lowest. There are a number of factors that have a bearing on compliance.

Lack of awareness on PAIA remains a consistent hindrance to compliance. The Commission has made efforts to increase awareness, insufficient resources however hinders our ability to reach all government departments.


In addition to lack of awareness, the lack of commitment on compliance results in PAIA not being accorded priority, hence, resources are not allocated for implementtion and compliance with PAIA.

Compliance rates for the reporting period have only marginally improved from compliance rates of the previous year. National compliance rates have improved by 7 percent, rates in provincial departments have increased by 11 percent, and local government rates have shown minimal improvement as well. Although some improvement can be traced, it remains significantly low across the board.

National Compliance Rates

Compliance level at national level was calculated at 62 per cent in 2010/2011 and increased to 69.77 percent in this financial year. The increase in compliance at national level is commendable and sets the tone for compliance in the country.

In the previous reporting period, key service delivery departments such as the Department of Basic Education, Home Affairs and Health were not compliant, however, for this reporing period, all three departments submitted reports in terms of section 32. This improvement is noteworthy and commendable.

Concerns remain when other key departments remain non compliant. The Department of Social Development and Department of Water Affairs cited as non compliant in the 2010/2011 period remains non compliant. Compliance with section 32 is mandatory and is a mechanism to test implemenation of PAIA and the responsiveness of public institutions. Taking into consideration the importance of the services rendered by the Department of Social Development and Water Affairs, it is impossible to assume that requests for information are not filed with the Department. In this regard, there is a need to establish whether PAIA is being implemented and the sytems to track and monitor requests.

The table below provides details on the compliance rates at National level which shows a signifcant improvement from previous years of the national government department tier.

NATIONAL

YEAR

COMPLIANT NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS

22 2002/2003 13 2003/2004 15 2004/2005 13 2005/2006 13 2006/2007 18 2007/2008 22 2008/2009 22 2009/2010 16 2010/2011 18


2011/2012 30

Provincial Compliance rates

Compliance rates in provincial government have over the years maintained a 50 percent compliance rate, however, in this reporting period, 61 percent of provincial departments submitted section 32 reports. In the 2010/2011 reporting period, only 56 of the 104 provincial departments submitted reports to the Commission resulting in a 53 percent compliance rate. Significant improvement has been demonstrated in the provinces with a total of 64 provincial departments submitting section section 32 report in this financial year.

The increase in compliance rates in the provinces can be attributed to the work of the Commission in hosting Provincial Information Officers Forums. Provinces within which PIOFs have been held demonstrate remarkable compliance rates, with the Free State and the Western Cape achieving 100 percent compliance. Improvement in previously non compliant provincial departments must also be noted. The Northern Cape province which had demonstrated three consequtive years of non compliance had four of their departments submit section 32 reports.

The North West province is a cause for concern however. The province has been one of the provinces listed in th repeat offenders list. Despite interventions of the Commission in this province, no compliance has been secured. This state of affairs in the North West is a demonstration of disregard of the right to access information and the need to comply with PAIA and to implement accordingly.

The offices of the Premier in all provinces should take the lead in complying with PAIA and driving awareness on PAIA within their respective provinces. Commitment from the offices of the Premier will play a significant role in increasing compliance. Kwa- Zulu Natal, Free State, Western Cape and Limpopo provinces which have been doing well in terms of compliance have the office of the Premier driving PAIA implementation in their respective provinces. For instance, Kwa-Zulu Natal province has over the past year increased its compliance rate to 70 percent and established a committee for DIOs and Records Managers. This committee has contributed to awareness raising and compliance in the province. This initiative is run from the Office of the Premier and has contributed to the success of Kwa-Zulu Natal in PAIA compliance and implemenation.

Graph 2: Compliance at provincial government level

PROVINCIAL

YEAR

COMPLIANT PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENTS

2002/2003 26

2003/2004 8 2004/2005 4 2005/2006 11


2006/2007 14 2007/2008 13 2008/2009 33 2009/2010 22 2010/2011 56

2011/2012 63

Local Government Compliance Rates

The local government sphere has consistently demonstrated low compliance rates. The same applies for this reporting period, however, pockets of improvement can be cited. The percentage rating in local government has always been abysmal, with a consistent performance of less than 10 percent.

In the previous reporting period, 20 municipalities submitted section 32 reports to the Commission, in this reporting period however, 62 municipalities submitted reports. The Western Cape, Kwa-Zulu Natal, Gauteng and and Northern Cape provinces have demonstrated increase in compliance.

The state of compliance at local level is a cause for concern noting the important role of municipalities in the public service arena. Municipalities are the first interface between a member of the public and government and are at the forefront of service delivery. The lack of information sharing systems leads to the assumptions that members of the public remain uninformed about plans of municipalities, are unable to make informed decisions and unable to access municipalities.

Noting the increasing number of service delivery protests, an expectation to receive reports on requests for information is justified. Failure to submit the section 32 report leads to the conclusion that municipalities are not responsive and do not have systems in place to properly administer PAIA and to comply with mandatory compliance requirements.

The need to accelerate awareness and secure commitment in the local government sector is of critical importance. While there is a need to raise awareness, it is important to note that officials in local government, in particular Mayors and Municipal Managers need to demonstrate commitment to transparency by implementing PAIA.

It is of critical importance for public officials to acknowledge the right to information as a deliverable and adhere to the principles of Batho Pele which emphasise the need to make information avaialble to the general public.

LOCAL YEAR

COMPLIANT PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENTS

2002/2003 3


2003/2004 4 2004/2005 6 2005/2006 8 2006/2007 11 2007/2008 48 2008/2009 33 2009/2010 25 2010/2011 20

2011/2012 69

Challenges

The challenges across all tiers of government remain unchanged. Resource constraints (human and capital), lack of awareness and buy-in are common challenges in the public sector.

Compliance monitoring carried out during the course of this reporting period consistently reveal a disregard for PAIA. This is evident in the fact that public institutions do not take initiatives to carry out their duties in terms of PAIA. While resource constraints remain a challenge, research conducted by the Commission in previous years identified the Limpopo Department of Health and Social Development as a department that initiated compliance and PAIA implemenation in the absence of resources. By incorporating PAIA into the strategic objectives of the department and creating systems within the department to implement PAIA, the department was rated as an institution that demonstrated best practice.

The example cited above is evidence of the ability to implementPAIA despite resource constraints. Proper and efficient implementation of PAIA can be achieved if there is a will to make the change.

However, on the other side of the coin are institutions that still find section 32 reporting difficult despite training. The Commission has discovered that public institutions do not accurately report on section 32. A case in point here is the report from Legal Aid South Africa (LASA) where a complainant brought to the attention of the Commission a number of requests made to LASA which were not reported in LASA’s 2010/11 section 32 report despite the fact that the requests were made in that financial year. The complainant was advised by the Commission that LASA’s 2011/12 report would be monitored to assess the accuracy of their statistical reporting. The Commission engaged with LASA and remains concerned about the accuracy of section 32 reporting by LASA, a problem which is also likely to exist with other public institutions. In the light of the case above, the Commission recommends that a review of section 32 reporting is undertaken. Such review should consider an expansion of section 32 reporting obligations to include substantive reporting, disaggregation of request type, an extension of the Commission’s powers to penalize non-compliance and inaccurate reporting as well as a duty on heads of public bodies to include section 32 reports in their reports to Parliament, over and above the reports submitted by the Commission. Also, public bodies should bear the costs incurred by the Commission in


instances it chooses to audit the veracity of reports submitted to it by the public body in question. In sum the commission recommends:

• the provisions of section 32 be expanded to substantive reporting; • the Commission be provided with resources, alternatively, that if public bodies were to be

audited, they should provide the resources for the audit of reports and files to be conducted; • that the Commission be given the powers to penalize inaccurate reporting and non-compliance

with the provisions of section 32 in terms of enabling provisions on enforcement in PAIA;

It is clear that despite training, a great deal of confusion remains about section 32 reporting. For example, in the context of the case above,

• officials are not clear whether requests for different but related documents submitted on one form constitutes a single request;

• officials are not certain on how to capture requests submitted at the end of March and they respond in the new year;

• officials are not certain about when discovery rules of court will apply in a matter being litigated and when PAIA can be used.

Since the first complaint on LASA, the SAHRC has trained LASA officials on PAIA. The Commission intends auditing LASA fully in the course of the 2012/13 financial year.

Trends

Trends on usage of PAIA are established through the analysis of the data provided in the section 32 report. Below is a detailed anaylis of requester trends for the period 2011/2012.

A total of 24 857 requests were lodged with national government departments. The bulk of these requests were submitted to the South African Police Services, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Department of Home Affairs.

The Department of Home Affairs received a total of 139 requests. An interesting point to note is that the department was reported as non compliant in the previous reporting period. Having complied with its reporting obligations in 2011/2012, the number of requests reflected in its report is high and warrants a cause for concern with the manner in which the department is processing and tracking requests.

Requests received in the provincial departments have increased when compared to previous statistics. For this reporting period, requests in provinces totaled 11 972. The province with the highest number of requests is KZN, its department of health alone processed 9809 requests. This level of activity indicates an increase in awarenes and development of systems in public bodies to capture statistics correctly.

Local governments have also in this reporting period shown increased activity, with the Western Cape municalities processing a total of 375 requests.


The increase in usage is noteworthy, however, more awareness on PAIA is required. Instances where certain departments report on nil return out weigh the number of institutions that accurately recorded requests received. This is of concern taking into consideration that these departments are service delivery institutions. Taking into consideration the number of service delivery protests across the country, submitting a report stating that no request for information was submitted is questionable. For instance, the Department of Transport has reported that no requests for information were submitted, the same is applicable to the department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities. The department of Basic Education though submitted its report, it stated that only five requests for information were submitted.

Analysis of these reports concludes that public bodies need to invest in mechanisms to ensure that PAIA requests are properly recorded and responded to accordinlgy.

Refusals

The number of refusals within the national sphere is 164 with the most refusals coming from the South African Police Service with 113 refusals. The highest number of refusals at provincial level is 1544 in the Kwa-Zulu Natal province and at local government level, the Western Cape has the highest number with 60 refusals.

Court applications

The number of court applications made on a refusal to grant access have been minimal. In this reporting period, no appllications were lodged both at national and local level. At provincial level, a total of 11 applications were lodged. These came from Kwa- Zulu Natal and Gauteng provinces.

The low number of applications can be attributable to the fact that members of the public whose requests have been denied do not have sufficient funds to litigate. Although there has been litigation on PAIA mattters, most of these matters are instituted by the media and individuals who have sufficient capital resourses to secure the services of a private attorney.

Public interest

The number of requests granted in the public interst are higher than the number of court applications. These high volumes are a positive reflection on public institutions’ openness and responsiveness. The number of requests granted in the public interest is 809 with the national sphere reflecting the highest number at 721.

Challenges in interpretation

The analysis of the reports submitted to the Commission has shown that DIOs completing the report do not have a complete understanding of PAIA and the requirements of section 32. This is evdient in the common misinterpretation of section(32)(d). This section requires public bodies to provide statistics on the number of requests refused in full or granted partially. It further requires the public body to state the number of times it relied on a provision of PAIA to refuse a request for information. In many


instances, the numbers indicated in the report do not add up. If for instance a public body recieves 4 requests for information, grants 2 and refuses 2, the report should reflect in section32(d) that the number of times a provison was relied to refuse access is 2. This is solely based on the fact that all refusals to grant information must be based on a provision of PAIA. A case in point here is the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries which in its report stated that 109 requests were received, 69 granted in full, and 25 granted in the public interest. It then states that 9 requests were refused in full and 03 granted partially and that the number of times the provisions of PAIA were relied on to refuse in full or grant partially is 20. The total in this instance should be 12 and not 20 as indicated.

This error is common and leads to inaccurate reports, therefore, the need for DIOs to appraise themselves with PAIA remains high.

Request trends at National Level


Trends at provincial level


Summary of Compliance

Section 32 breakdown

NATIONAL S32 COMPLIANT BODIES Civilian Secretariat of Police Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department of Defence Department of Basic Education Department of Communications Department of Cooperative Governance Department of Correctional Services Department of Energy Department of Environmental Affairs Department of Health Department of Home Affairs Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Department of Labour Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (NO IO on GCIS) Department of Public Enterprises Department of Public Service and Administration Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Department of State Security


Department of Tourism Department of Transport Department of Trade and Industry Department for Women, Children and People with Disabilities Department of Higher Education and Training Independent Complaints Directorate Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy National Treasury Department of the Presidency South African Police Service (SAPS) (NO IO on GCIS) Sport and Recreation South Africa South African Revenue Service

30

NATIONAL S32 NON-COMPLIANT BODIES

Department of Arts and Culture Department of Economic Development Department of Human Settlements Department of International Relations and Cooperation Department of Military Veterans Department of Mineral Resources Department of Public Works Department of Science and Technology Department of Social Development Department of Traditional Affairs Department of Water Affairs Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) Statistics South Africa

13


NATIONAL Number of request for access received s32(a)

Number of request for access granted in full s32(b)

Number of requests granted despite there being a ground of refusal but granted in the public interest

Number of requests for access:(a) refusal in full (b) refused partially (c) number of times each provision of the act was relied on to refuse access in full or partially S32(d)

Number of cases in which the period stipulated in s25(1) were extended in terms of s26 (1) S32(e)

Number of internal appeals (a) lodged with the relevant authority

(b) number of cases in which as a result of an internal appeal access was given s32(f)

Number of internal appeals which were lodged on the ground that a request for access was regarded has having been refused in terms of s27 section 32 (g)

Number of applications to a court which were lodged on the ground that internal appeal was regarded as having been dismissed in terms of section 77 (7) s32 (h)

Other information


NATIONAL A B C Civilian Secretariat of Police

01 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deferred to SAPS by parliamentary process

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

108 69 25 09 03 20 14 03 0 0 0 1 request withdrawn, 1 request pending, 2 non- payment, 1 pending legal opinion

Department of Defence

22 14 0 0 04 04 09 02 0 02 0

Department of Basic Education

05 05 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 Submitted late

Department of Communications

03 01 01 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 Report inaccurate

Department of Energy

50 03 0 0 47 47 04 02 01 0 0 Submitted late

Department of Cooperative Governance

03 02 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Submitted early, refused one due working document

Department of Correctional Services

32 02 0 0 10 10 11 01 0 0 0 Annexed a contact list for correctional services

Department of Environmental Affairs

35 28 0 0 07 0 08 0 0 0 0 Inaccurate report

Department of Health

38 10 0 02 01 03 03 01 0 0 0 21 requests transferred, one


pending Department of Home Affairs

139 49 0 07 02 01 11 0 - 69 0 The high number of appeals 69 (deemed refusals) are fictitious appeals as the original request had not been dealt with but is receiving attention now

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development

792 141 0 12 01 13 162 03 0 01 0

Department of Labour

07 03 0 03 01 04 01 0 0 0 0

Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

New sub department of the Presidency- Had meeting to assist with PAIA implementation- first time compliance

Department of Public Service and Administration

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Department of Public Enterprises

02 02 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 0 0

Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

03 01 0 0 02 02 02 0 0 0 0 01 further request brought into this financial year, 01 extended request still pending after 31/03/12

Department of State Security

12 0 0 04 0 04 10 09 0 09 0

Department of Tourism

02 02 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0

Department of Transport

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Department of Trade and Industry

14 11 0 01 01 0 03 0 0 0 0 01 request forwarded in terms of PAIA. Created their own template – did not give details of IO or DIO

Department for Women, Children and People with Disabilities

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Report could possibly be inaccurate due to the fact that the department states that they will only have a PAIA unit which


will begin PAIA implementation in 2012

Independent Complaints Directorate

06 02 0 03 01 04 0 0 0 0 0 They refused 03 in terms of Section 39(1)(b)(ii) and released information partially ito section 46

National Treasury

10 0 0 05 0 05 02 03 01 01 01

Department of the Presidency

18 2 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 0

South African Police Service (SAPS) (NO IO on GCIS)

23 539 20 025 695 113 85 808 155 05 01 0 0

South African Revenue Service

09 05 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 0 0

Sports and Recreation

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Department of Higher Education and

7 6 0 1 0 1 1 4 3 2 0


Training TOTAL

24857 20383 721 164 165 930 404 34 7 84 0

The highest amount of

requests is from the SAPS

Provincial Government

Eastern Cape Compliance Provincial Treasury 1

Eastern Cape Non-Compliance Office of the Premier Agriculture and Rural Development Economic Development and Environmental Affairs Education Human Settlements Safety and Liaison Local Government and Traditional Affairs Roads and Public Works Transport Social Development Sport, Recreation, Arts and Culture Health 12


Provincial Number of request for access received s32(a)









Other information

A B C Eastern Cape Provincial Treasury

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Free State Compliance 100% Office of the Premier Agriculture Human Settlements Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs Education Health Police, Roads and Transport Provincial Treasury Public Works and Rural Development Social Development Sport, Arts, Culture and Recreation 12








Number of internal appeals which were lodged on the ground that a request for access was regarded has


Other information


having been refused in terms of s27 section 32 (g)

A B C Free State Premier 67 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 referrals

and 1 application withdrawn

Agriculture and rural Development

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Economic Development, Environment and Tourism

06 03 0 01 01 03 01 0 0 0 0 The department states it takes time to search for documents, a lot of the information deals with third parties


and consent needs to be obtained. They want a means test for parties to pay for third party notification

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Health 19 10 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 They are

training hospitals in the province to better report on PAIA ( most applications are for medical records)

Human Settlements

02 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poor coordination of requests; request for PAIA training

Social Development

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

01 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poor coordination of requests; request for PAIA training


Provincial Treasury

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Public Works 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Police, Roads and Transport

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sport, Arts and Culture

58 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Most requests received from media on purported allegations; request for training

TOTAL 153 128 0 1 2 3 2 0 0 0 0

GAUTENG COMPLIANCE Premier Agriculture and Rural Development Economic Development Education Finance Local Government and Housing Roads and Public Transport Sport, Arts and Culture 8

GAUTENG NON COMPLIANCE Community Safety Health and Social Development Infrastructure Development











Other information

A B C Gauteng Premier 04 01 0 03 0 03 0 0 0 0 0 Agriculture and Rural Development

31 12 01 07 05 03 04 05 02 03 0 ABC does not add up, report inaccurate

Economic 04 01 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 0 0


Development Education 13 03 0 09 01 10 01 03 0 0 03 Finance 05 0 0 05 0 05 01 01 0 0 0 Local Government and Housing

40 37 0 03 0 0 05 0 0 0 0

Roads and Public Transport

13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sport, Arts and Culture

81 50 02 0 0 0 07 07 04 07 0 12 requests still pending, report inaccurate

Total 191 117 03 28 06 22 18 16 06 10 03

KWA ZULU NATAL COMPLIANCE Premier Agriculture and Environmental Affairs Community Safety Health Human Settlements Social Development Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Provincial Treasury Public Works Transport Sport and Recreation 11


KWA ZULU NATAL NON COMPLIANCE Arts and Culture Economic Development, Environment and Tourism Education










Other information

A B C KWA ZULU NATAL

Premier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Agriculture and Environmental Affairs

12 08 0 02 0 02 06 0 0 0 0

Community Safety

- - - - - - - - - - - No report submitted, however sent a letter stating that no requests were received and are submitting a nil response

Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

06 04 0 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 01 Inaccurate report

Health 9808 7328 52 1544 0 1533 98 02 03 05 0 Human Settlements

05 03 0 02 02 01 0 0 0 0 0 Request for housing projects for research purposes, request refused from financial institute on the basis of commercial interests


Social Development

08 06 0 01 0 01 01 0 0 0 0

Sport and Recreation

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Provincial Treasury

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Public Works 03 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 requests will be dealt with in the next financial reporting period

Transport 1070 916 0 04 154 02 0 0 0 0 0 Only twice was PAIA relied on to refuse a request

TOTAL 10912 8266 52 1553 156 1539 108 2 3 5 1

LIMPOPO COMPLIANCE Premier Agriculture Economic Development, Environment and Tourism Education Health Social Development Local Government and Housing Provincial Treasury Public Works Roads and Public Transport


Safety, Security and Liaison Sport, Arts and Culture 12










Other information

A B C LIMPOPO Premier 02 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agriculture 09 02 0 03 02 05 02 01 01 01 0 Request

training on


PAIA Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs

14 09 0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Economic Development, Environment and Tourism

05 02 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 Report is inaccurate

Education 02 01 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 Health 110 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 This report

was inaccurate, however they have submitted corrected stats

Provincial Treasury

04 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Public Works 03 0 0 0 02 02 01 0 0 0 0 Popularization of PAIA in rural areas

Roads and Public Transport

18 06 0 07 0 07 05 06 01 0 0 Delays in responses caused by search of documents

Social Development

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Safety, 02 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Security and Liaison Sport, Arts and Culture

01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Request for training

TOTAL 170 139 0 16 4 14 10 7 2 1 0

MPUMALANGA COMPLIANCE Human Settlements Public Works Roads and Transport

MPUMALANGA NON COMPLIANCE Premier Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Administration Community Safety, Security and Liaison Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs Culture, Sport and Recreation Economic Development, Environment and Tourism Education Finance Health Social Development











Other information

A B C Mpumalanga Human Settlements

- - - - - - - - - - - No report submitted following a letter stating that there had been no application

Public Works Roads and

02 0 0 01 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 1 Request refused due


Transport to legal implications and 1 request granted partially and still breached the 30 day timeframe

TOTAL 02 0 0 01 0 01 01 0 0 0 0

NORTH WEST NON COMPLIANCE Premier Agriculture and Rural Development Economic Development, Environment and Tourism Education Finance Health Human Settlements, Public Safety and Liaison Local Government and Traditional Affairs Public Works, Roads and Transport Social Development, Women, Children and People with Disabilities Sport, Arts and Culture

NORTHERN CAPE COMPLIANCE Premier Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development Economic Development, and Tourism Transport, Safety and Liaison


NORTHERN CAPE NON-COMPLIANCE Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs Education Environment and Nature Conservation Provincial Treasury Health Roads and Public Works Social Development Sport Arts and Culture








Number of internal appeals which were lodged on the ground that a request for access was regarded has having been refused in terms of s27 section


Other information


32 (g)

A B C Northern Cape

Premier 01 01 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 1 request and still breached the timeframe

Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 They claim no request was received, they are implementing a PAIA system and will have better stats; asked for training

Economic Development, and Tourism

02 02 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0


Transport, Safety and Liaison

329 293 07 19 02 19 0 0 0 0 0 Some requesters sent incomplete requests, others request third party documents which the department claimed were without third party consent or power of attorney

TOTAL 332 296 7 19 2 19 2 0 0 0 0

WESTERN CAPE COMPLIANCE Office of the Premier Agriculture Community Safety Cultural Affairs and Sport Education Economic Development and Tourism Provincial Treasury Health Human Settlements Local Government Social Development Environmental Affairs and Development Planning


Transport and Public Works










Other information

A B C WESTERN CAPE

Premier 31 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Agriculture 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Report is

inaccurate as indicated on request


received does not state whether granted or refused

Community Safety

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cultural Affairs and Sport

06 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Economic Development and Tourism

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Environmental Affairs and Development planning

89 87 0 02 0 01 44 01 0 0 0 1 request was refused on a basis outside of paia as evidenced from the report

Education 04 03 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 Health 54 52 02 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 0 Human Settlements

13 11 0 02 0 02 0 0 0 0 0

Local Government

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Social Development

02 01 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The request which was refused was for access to a computer. They did not


rely on PAIA to refuse according to them a computer is not a record

Provincial Treasury

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Transport and Public Works

12 08 0 03 01 0 05 0 0 0 0 Not one provision of PAIA was used to refuse requests

TOTAL 212 199 02 09 01 04 52 01 0 0 0

Local Government


WESTERN CAPE Number of request for access received s32(a)


Number of requests granted despite there being a ground of refusal, but granted in the public interest s32(c)

Number of requests for access:(a) refused in full (b) refused partially (c) number of times each provision of the act was relied on to refuse access in full or partially S32(d)






Other information

A B C METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES

City of Cape Town metropolitan municipality

215 123 0 40 10 49 28 12 03 0 0 Refer to report

DISTRICTS

Cape Winelands District Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Eden district Municipality

30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

West Coast District

03 03 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES

Bergrevier local municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Drakenstein Local municipality

04 02 0 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

George local municipality

26 25 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 0 0

Kannaland municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Knysna Local municipality

07 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Langeberg Municipality

04 03 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not filled in on reporting template

Matzikama Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overstrand local 36 19 04 16 01 17 0 0 0 0 0 Saldanha Bay Local Municipality

12 10 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 0

Swartland local 22 21 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Swellendam Local

08 08 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tweewaterskloof 07 05 0 01 0 01 0 01 01 0 0


NOTHERN CAPE

Number of request for access received s32(a)









Other information


local Witzenberg Local 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL (17 compliant ) 375 257 09 61 12 71 28 13 4 0 0


DISTRICTS MUNICIPALITIES

Frances Baard District Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No formal requests made- only requests for general information and tender related enquiries-

Siyanda District Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES

Emthanjeni Local Municipality

02 02 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0

Gamagara Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The municipality has drafted its own policy in order to comply and/or to ensure compliance with PAIA

Joe Morolong Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kamiesberg Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Section 14 manual still to be developed and implemented-


record keeping not fully functional yet due to financial constraints, target date set at March 2013

Kareeberg Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Thembelihle Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Khara Hais Local Municipality

01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL (09 compliant) 03 03 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0


FREE STATE Number of request for access received s32(a)









Other information


DISTRICTS

Xhariep district Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

Mohokare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Local Municipality Moqhaka Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Setsoto Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tokologo Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tswelopele Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 There were no requests made ito PAIA. Only requests falling outside of PAIA have been dealt with from time to time.

TOTAL (06 compliant)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


KWA-ZULU NATAL



Number of requests granted despite there being a ground of refusal, but granted in the public interest in terms of Sec 46 s32(c)







Other information



Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality

98 83 0 7 0 7 18 01 01 0 0 Late report not completed on template report provided

DISTRICTS Amajuba District Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Umgungundlovu District Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zululand District Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In terms of the implementation of PAIA, the municipality requested assistance from the SAHRC

LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

Dannhauser Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emnambithi - Ladysmith Local Municipality

18 18 0 0 0 0 0 04 0 0 0 -training required for staff to properly administer PAIA -require practice manual/handbooks and best practice guides to ensure proper administration


Endumeni Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mandeni Local Municipality

01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Msunduzi Local Municipality

10 10 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0

Mthonjaneni Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nquthu Local Municipality

60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 per cent commitment to implementation of PAIA during the 2012/2013 financial year

Umdoni Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Umhlathuze Local Municipality

05 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Awaiting application form in respect of the 5th applicant / requester

Umshwati Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No requests received by municipality


192 176 0 7 0 7 19 5 1 0 0


LIMPOPO Number of request for access received s32(a)









Other information



DISTRICTS

Capricorn District Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

Makhado Local Municipality

02 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -Requested information on tariffs for requests and access to a record - the impact of protection of state information bill on PAIA

Modimolle Local Municipality

- - - - - - - - - -- - To resubmit report

TOTAL (03 compliant) 02 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


MPUMALANGA Number of request for access received s32(a)









Other information



DISTRICTS

Ehlanzeni District Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

Mbombela Local Municipality

10 05 0 01 02 0 05 01 0 01 0

Umjindi Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL (03 compliant) 10 05 0 01 02 0 05 01 0 1 0


NORTH WEST Number of request for access received s32(a)




Nu mber of cases in which the period stipulated in s25(1) were extended in terms of s26 (1) S32(e)





Other information



DISTRICTS

LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

City of Matlosana Local Municipality

01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dikgatlong Local Municipaility

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Greater Taung Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Madibeng Local Municipality

07 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moses Kotane local Municipality

01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tlokwe Local Municipality

05 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


EASTERN CAPE










Other information



Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality

12 09 0 03 0 03 0 0 0 0 0

DISTRICTS

Joe Cqabi District Municipality

04 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Local Municipality

TOTAL (02 compliant) 16 13 0 03 0 03 0 0 0 0 0


GAUTENG Number of request for access received s32(a)









Other information


City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

115 65 02 33 0 33 15 30 02 30 0 Implementation date 15/2/03- request forms published in 4 langauges, internal appeal form & PAIA manual on their


internet site, also on their intranet, manual for COJ clients.

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

14 10 04 01 2 02 01 0 01 0 0

DISTRICTS

Sedibeng District Municipality

06 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lack of training of municipal officials is an impediment regarding the implementation of PAIA

West Rand District Municipality

02 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

Emfuleni Local Municipality

07 05 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 0 0

Midvaal Local Municipality

11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mogale City Local Municipality

03 01 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PAIA will be moved to the office of the COO

Randfontein Local Municipality

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Westonaria Local Municipality 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Breakdown of public bodies submitting section 32 Reports

2007 / 2008

2008 / 2009

2009 / 2010

2010 / 2011

2011 / 2012

NATIONAL DEPARTMENT 22 22 16 18 30 PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT 13 33 22 56 63 LOCAL DEPARTMENT 48 33 25 20 69 OTHER BODIES 21 28 4 30 31 TOTALS 104 116 67 124 185

TOTAL (09 compliant) 159 97 6 35 2 36 21 30 3 30 0


OTHER BODIES Number of request for access received s32(a)









Other information

OTHER BODIES A B C Accounting Standards Board

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South African Reserve Bank

1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Agri SETA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Airports Company SA

03 0 0 02 0 02 0 0 0 0 0 They use in house counsel to implement PAIA


Amafa/Heritage KZN

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Auditor General SA

01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The one request received was transferred

Eskom 52 21 0 09 10 0 15 4 03 0 0 5 requests pending

Free State Gambling Board

01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gauteng Gambling Board

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Independent Quality Assurance Agency

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Industrial Development Corporation

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ithala Development Finance Corporation Ltd

01 01 - - - - - - - - - Late report

KZN Growth Fund Trust

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Land Bank 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Late Report Legal Aid South Africa

01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Magistrates Commission

05 03 0 0 02 0 01 0 0 0 0

MerSETA 04 03 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 Mining Qualifications Authority

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


National Nuclear Regulator

02 01 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 01 0

National Research Foundation

02 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South African Civil Aviation Authority

19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In their statements they report that they process all request but do not state whether requests were granted or declined

South African Veterinary Council

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South African National Parks

3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SAQA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telkom 05 01 0 0 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ubucko Twines and Fabrics

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

University of Cape Town

01 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0

University of Johannesburg

2173 2094 0 5 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 66 requests granted partially

Wholesale and Retail SETA

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


TOTAL

2276 2131 0 19 19 6 22 5 3 1 0


OTHER BODIES Number of request for access received s32(a)









Other information

South African Human Rights Commission

2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Public Service Commission

3 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0



Section 51 requires the heads of private institutions to compile an information manual which is essentially a roadmap for the private body for the implementation of PAIA. The manual must provide information on the records held by the private institution and how these records can be accessed. In addition to information on the records held by a private institution, details of the information officer must be provided. The manual must distinguish between records held by the private institution in terms of another piece of legislation and general records generated by the private institution.

The manual must further describe the request procedure that must be followed by a requester to lodge a request, the recourse available to the requester if the request for information is declined and the prescribed fees. PAIA provides that all private institutions are to submit their access to information manuals to the Commission and keep copies of the manuals at the registered place of business, place of legal deposit and also, make the manuals available on websites if one exists.

The Exemption of Private Institutions

The obligation of submitting Section 51 manuals to the Commission has placed an onerous obligation on smaller enterprises in terms of the financial implications to compile and submit manuals to the Commission and to a larger extent the informal business sector. Also, submissions by the private sector seeking to comply with PAIA have further placed strain on the Commission which lacks the resources and personnel to handle the receipt of manuals. This led the Commission to express its concerns to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development which in turn extended the exemption for certain private bodies from compiling their information manuals from 31st December 2011 to December 2015. This exemption however does not exempt any private institution from the rest of the prescripts of the legislation.

The moratorium for the extension of the exemption stated the following:

Any private body, except any company which- (a) is not a private company as defined in section 1 of the Companies Act 2008 (Act No. 71 of 2008); and (b) is a private company as defined in section 1 of the Companies Act, 2008 (Act No. 71 of 2008) which- (i) operates within any of the sectors mentioned in Column one of the Schedule to this Notice and has 50 or more employees in their employment; or (ii) has a total annual turnover that is equal to or more than the applicable amount mentioned in Column 2 of the Schedule to this Notice, is exempt from compiling the manual contemplated in section 51 (1) of the first mentioned Act for a period of 36 months from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2015.


Column 1 Column 2

Agriculture R 2 million

Mining and Quarrying R 7 million

Manufacturing R 10 million

Electrical, Gas and Water R 10 million

Construction R 5 million

Retail and Motor Trade and Repair Services R 15 million

Wholesale Trade, Commercial Agents and Allied Services

R 25 million

Catering, Accommodation and other Trade R 5 million

Transport, Storage and Communications R 10 million

Finance and Business Services R 10 million

Community, Special and Personal Services R 5 million

The effect of the moratorium:

Last year, when the exemption was coming to an end on the 31st of December 2011, the Commission found itself once again inundated with calls for assistance from the private sector. At the end of 2011, every private entity was required to submit their manual irrespective of the turnover they generate or the number of workers they employ. Between March and September 2011, the Commission assisted over ten thousand requesters from the private sector via telephone and email caused by the impending lapse of the moratorium exempting them from compiling the section 51 manual.

In order to deal with the huge volume of inquiries on section 51, the Commission developed guidance notes and a generic template to address most frequently asked questions, concerns and challenges encountered by the private sector when compiling their section 51 manuals. These measures the Commission put in place aided the decline in the enquiries received on s 51 manuals

During the latter half of 2011, the Commission received over 200 000 thousand manuals. That figure sharply declined in the first part of this year due to the extension that was granted to certain private entities.



National Departments

Name of department Website S14 Manual Accessibility Version/Last

Updated

1. Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries

Yes Yes Easily accessible 2011

2. Arts & Culture Yes Inaccessible Poor 2003

3. Basic Education Yes Yes - Fairly difficult 10/07/06

4. Civilian Secretariat of Police Yes No - -

5. Communications Yes Draft manual submitted to the Commission for review

N/A 2012

6. Cooperative Governance Yes Yes Good N/A

7. Correctional Services Yes Yes Good 07/2006

8. Defence and Military Veterans Yes Yes Fairly difficult -

9. Economic Development Yes No - -


10. Energy Yes No - -

11. Environmental Affairs Yes Yes Good 2012

12. Government Communication & Information System (GCIS)

Yes Yes Easily Accessible 04/11

13. Health Yes No

14. Higher Education & Training Yes Yes Fairly easy 2006

15. Home Affairs Yes No - -

16. Human Settlements Yes No - -

17. Independent Police Investigative Directorate

Yes Yes - -

18. International Relations & Cooperation

Yes No - -

19. Justice & Constitutional Development

Yes Yes Good July 2012

20. Labour Yes Yes Easily Accessible 2010

21. Mineral Resources Yes No

22. State Security Yes No - -

23. National Treasury Yes No - -

24. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (forms part of the

Yes Yes Easily accessible 2010


Department of the Presidency)

25. Public Administration Leadership and Management Academy

Yes No - -

26. Public Enterprises Yes Yes Fairly difficult Posted 26/11/10 developed 2008

27. Public Service & Administration Yes Yes Fairly difficult 08/2011

28. Public Service Commission Yes Yes Good 2010

29. Public Works Yes No No links on PAIA

30. Rural Development & Land Reform

Yes Yes Simple -

31. Science & Technology Yes Yes Simple 2011

32. Social Development Yes Yes Fairly difficult 2009

33. SA National Academy of Intelligence

Yes No - -

34. SA Police Service Yes Yes Fairly difficult -

35. SA Revenue Service Yes Yes Fairly difficult -

36. Sport & Recreation South Africa Yes Yes Easy 2012

37. Statistics South Africa Yes Yes Good


Compliance at National Level:

A total of 25 national departments complied with the provisions of section 14. As stated in previous reports by the Commission,

departments such as the South African Revenue Service, Department of Justice, Statistics South Africa and the South African Police Services

have demonstrated consistent compliance with PAIA. In addition, the Commission notes that although all Departments in the National tier

have websites, there are departments such as Human Settlements, Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Correctional Services,

Public Enterprises and Basic Education which have manuals that have not been updated since 2006. This is a cause for concern because the

information reflected in those manuals are not up to date and relevant to address the needs of the people as well as help in the assertion

of the right to access information. It is a further breach of the proviso of Section 14 of PAIA (namely that information manuals needs to be

updated annually).

38. Tourism Yes No - -

39. Trade & Industry Yes No - -

40. Traditional Affairs Yes No - -

41. Transport Yes No - -

42. Water Affairs Yes Yes Fairly difficult -

43. Women, Children & People with Disabilities

Yes No - -

44. The Presidency Yes Yes Good 2010

TOTAL (44)

(25)


Provincial Departments

Name of department Website S14 Manual Accessibility Version/Last Updated

EASTERN CAPE

1 Office of the Premier Yes Yes Poor 2009

2 Agriculture Yes No - -

3 Economic Development Yes No - -

4 Education Yes No - -

5 Health Website inaccessible

- - -

6 Human Settlements Yes No - -

7 Local Government and Traditional Affairs

Yes No - -

8 Treasury Yes No - -

9 Public Works Yes No - -

10 Transport Yes No - -

11 Safety and Liaison Yes No - -

12 Social Development Yes No - -


13 Sports and Recreation Inaccessible No - -

TOTAL 13 (1) 8%

NORTHERN CAPE

1 Premier Yes Yes Very Good 2012

2 Agriculture ,Land and Rural Affairs

Yes Yes Good 2011

3 Education Yes Yes Good-Available on the OTP’s website

2011

4 Environmental Affairs Yes Yes Good-Available on the OTP’s website

2011

5 Economic Development Yes Yes Good Available on the OTP’s website

2011

6 Health Inaccessible Yes Good-Available on the OTP’s website

2011

7 Public Works Yes Yes Good-Available on the OTP’s website

2011

8 Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Yes Yes Good Available on the OTP’s website

2011

9 Provincial Treasury Yes Yes Good-Available on 2011


the OTP’s website

10 Transport Yes Yes Good-Available on the OTP’s website

2011

11 Sports , Arts and Culture Yes Yes Good-Available on the OTP’s website

2011

TOTAL 11 (11) 100%

WESTERN CAPE

1 Premier Yes Yes Simple 2011

2 Agriculture Yes Yes Simple 2011

3 Community Safety Yes Yes Simple 2011

4 Cultural Affairs and Sports

Yes Yes Simple 2011

5 Economic Development and Tourism

Yes Yes Simple 2011

6 Environmental Affairs, Development and Planning

Yes Yes Simple 2011

7 Health Yes Yes Simple 2011

8 Human Settlements Yes Yes Simple 2011


FREE STATE

Free state province has a general home page where all manuals of departments can be accessed.

1 Premier Yes Yes 100% Simple 2011


3 Education Yes Yes Simple 2011


5 Corporate Governance, Traditional Affairs & Human Settlement

Yes Yes Simple 2011

6 Social Development Yes Yes Simple 2011

7 Sports, Arts and Culture Yes Yes Simple 2011

9 Local Government Yes Yes Simple 2011


11 Transport and Public Works

Yes Yes Simple 2011


TOTAL 12 (12) 100%


8 Police, Roads & Transport Yes Yes Simple 2011

9 Economic Development and Environmental Affairs

Yes Yes Simple 2011

10 Provincial Treasury Yes Yes Simple 2011

11 Public Works & Rural Development

Yes Yes Simple 2011

TOTAL 11 (11) 100%

GAUTENG

Gauteng province has a general home page and a link to all its publications and report where all manuals of departments can be accessed.

1 Premier Yes Not on website submitted Feb 2011

- 2011

2 Roads and Transport Yes No - -

3 Housing and Local Government

Yes No - -

4 Education Yes Yes

Accessible through links- not simple.

2010


5 Health and Social Dev elopement

Yes No - -

6 Sports, Arts ,Culture and Recreation

Yes No - -

7 Economic Development Yes No - -

8 Community Safety Yes Yes Simple 2010, copy submitted to the Commission

9 Finance Yes No - -

10 Agriculture and Rural Development

Yes Yes Simple 2012

11 Infrastructure Development

Yes No - -

TOTAL 11 (3) 100% 27%

NORTH WEST

1 Premier Yes No - -

2 Treasury/Finance Yes No - -


3 Health Yes No - -

4 Sports, Arts and Culture Yes No - -


6 Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Yes No - -


8 Local Government Yes No - -


10 Agriculture, Land and Rural Affairs

Yes No - -


12 Legislature Yes No - -

TOTAL 12 (0) 0%

PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT

WEBSITE SECTION 14 MANUAL

ACCESSIBILITY UPDATED

LIMPOPO

Limpopo has a homepage where all the manuals for all departments can be accessed.




3 Economic Development, Environment and Tourism

Yes Yes Simple 2011




7 Local Government and Housing

Yes Yes Simple 2011

8 Provincial Treasury Yes Yes Simple 2011

9 Public Works Yes Yes Simple 2011

10 Roads and Public Transport

Yes Yes Simple 2011

11 Safety, Security and Liaison

Yes Yes Simple 2011

12 Sport, Arts and Culture Yes Yes Simple 2011

TOTAL 12 100%

MPUMALANGA

On their website, there is a link to “Public Access To Information (PAIA)” which is linked to the DOJ & CD website for requesters to obtain


request forms.

1 Premier Yes No - -

2 Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Administration

Yes No - -

3 Community Safety, Security and Liaison

Yes Yes Fairly difficult -

4 Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Yes No - -

5 Culture, Sport and Recreation Yes No - -


Yes No - -


8 Finance Yes No - -

9 Health Inaccessible - - -



12 Public Works, Roads and Transport

Yes No - -


TOTAL 12 (1)

8%

KWA-ZULU NATAL


2 Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Rural Development

Yes Yes Simple June 2010

3 Arts and Culture Yes No - -

4 Sport and Recreation Yes No - -

5 Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Yes Yes Simple June 2009


Yes No - -

7 Education Yes Yes Extremely difficult links don’t open

-

8 Provincial Treasury Yes No - -

9 Health Yes No - -




12 Social Development Yes - Website under construction

- - -

13 Transport Yes No - -

14 Community Safety and Liaison Yes No - -

TOTAL 14 (04)

04 28 %

Compliance at Provincial Level:

Section 14 compliance monitoring by the Commission has revealed that compliance rates are lower for provincial departments than at national level. The previous annual report by the Commission highlighted a marginal 5 per cent difference between the compliance rates of the two tiers but both tiers still remain under 50 per cent. In this financial year, it is evident that there has been a marked improvement in the provincial sphere (from a total of 108 provincial departments, there has been compliance by 55 provincial departments) with an 11 per cent increase in terms of compliance rates. This increase was due to the Northern Cape Province and its compliance for this financial year. The compliance for this province has arisen out of the drive for implementation initiated by the Premier’s office as well as the PIOF held there in March 2012.

The Western Cape and Free State provincial departments have shown continued dedication to PAIA compliance with 100 per cent compliance while other provinces like the North West once again registered zero compliance and Mpumalanga province only had one department submit a manual.

Previously, the Offices of the Premier in KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo have worked closely with the Commission to encourage compliance in the respective provinces and we have seen some improvement in compliance with Limpopo provincial departments.


There is immediate need for interventions at the North West and Mpumalanga Provinces since they have remained non-compliant since 2001. As lead departments in the provinces, the Offices of the Premier must be encouraged to secure compliance of their respective provinces.

Local Government

NORTHERN CAPE

Municipality Website S14 manual Accessibility Version/Last update

1. John Taolo Gaetsewe District Yes Yes- not uploaded to their website

Unavailable -

2. Ga-Segonyana Yes No - -

3. Moshaweng Yes No - -

4. Gamagara Yes Yes Not uploaded to website

2011

5. Frances Baard District Yes Yes Yes -

6. Sol Plaatjie Yes No - -

7. Dikgatlong No No - -

8. Magareng No No - -

9. Namakwa District Yes Yes Yes -

10. Richterveld Yes No - -

11. Nama Khoi Yes Yes Yes -

12. Kamiesberg No No - -


13. Hantam No No - -

14. Karoo Hoogland Yes No - -

15. Khai-Ma No No - -

16. Pixley Ka Seme District Yes No - -

17. Ubuntu Yes No - -

18. Umsombomvu No No - -

19. Emthenjeni Yes No - -

20. Kareeberg Yes No - -

21. ReNosteberg No No - -

22. Thembelihle Yes No - -

23. Siyathanda Yes No - -

24. Siyancuma No No - -

25. Siyanda District Yes Yes Simple 2011

26. Mier No No - -

27. Kai! Garib Yes No - -

28. Khara Hais Yes Yes Difficult 2010 (Sec51)

29. Kheis Yes No - -

30.Tsantsabane No No - -


31. Kgatelopele No No - -

32. Phokwane Yes No - -

TOTAL 32

EASTERN CAPE


1. Nelson Mandela Bay Metro Yes No - -

2. Cacadu District Yes No - -

3. Camdeboo Yes Yes Not uploaded on their website

2009 hardcopy submitted

4. Alfred Nzo District Municipality

Yes No - -

5. Blue Crane Route Yes No - -

6. Ikwezi Yes No - -

7. Baviaans . Yes No - -

8. Kouga . Yes- Unavailable No - -

9. Kou-Kamma Yes No - -

10. Makana . Yes although the site is inaccessible

No - -

11. Ndlambe Yes No - -


12. Sunday Rivier Valley Yes No - -

13. Amathole District Yes No - -

14. Mbashe Yes No - -

15. Mnquma Yes No - -

16. Greater Kei Yes No - -

17. Amahlathi Yes No - -

18.Buffalo City Yes Yes No manual uploaded to website however they have a page with the introduction to PAIA

2011, hardcopy submitted to the Commission -

19. Ngquashwa Yes No - -

20. Nkonkobe No- Website inaccessible

No - -

21. Ntanbankulu Yes No - -

22. Nxuba Yes No manual uploaded Has a page that says Access to information with only the contact information of the Municipality

No manual

23. Chris Hani District Yes No No -


24. Inxuba Yethemba Yes-Inaccessible No - -

25. Tsolwana Yes No - -

26. Inkwanca Yes No - -

27. Lukhanji Yes No Not uploaded -

28. Intsika Yes No - -

29. Emalahleni Yes No - -

30. Engcobo No No - -

31. Sakhisizwe Yes No - -

30. Ukhahlamba District Yes No - -

32. Elundini Yes No- They have only uploaded the PAIA Act

- -

33. Senqu Yes Yes Via links -

34. Maletswai Yes No - -

35. Gariep Yes-website very poorly designed all links don’t work

No - -

36. Mbizana Yes No - -

37. Ntabankulu Yes No - -


38. Qaukeni Yes No - -

39. Port St John’s Yes No-manual However they provide a page with PAIA requests received for each month

-

40. Nyandeni Yes No - -

41. Mhlontlo No No - -

42. King Sebata Dalindyebo No No - -

43. Alfred Nzo District Yes No - -

44. Umzimvubu Yes No - -

45. Matatiele Yes No - -

TOTAL 45

WESTERN CAPE


1. City of Cape Town Yes Yes Yes -

2. West Coast District Yes Yes - -

3. Matzikama Yes Yes Very good 2010


4. Cederberg Yes No - -

5. Bergrivier Yes No - -

6. Saldahna Bay Yes No - -

7. Swartland Yes No - -

8. Cape Winelands District Yes Yes Yes 2012

9. Witzberg Yes No - -

10. Drakenstein Local Municipality

Yes Yes Via links -

11. Stellenbosch Yes Yes Very Good -

12. Beaufort West Local Municipality

Yes No - -

13. Breede Valley Yes No - -

14. Langeberg Yes No - -

15. Overberg District Yes No - -

16. Theewaterskloof Yes No - -

17. Overstrand Yes Yes Very Good 2009

18. Cape Agulhas Yes No - -

19. Swellendam Yes No - -


20. Eden District Yes No - -

21. Kannaland Yes No - -

22. Hessequa Yes No - -

23. Mossel Bay Yes Yes Via links not good 2009

24. George Yes No - -

25. Oudtshoorn Yes No - -

26. Bitou Yes No - -

27. Knysna Yes No - -

28. Central Karoo District Yes No - -

29. Laingsburg Yes No - -

30. Prince Albert Yes No - -

TOTAL 30 08

LIMPOPO PROVINCE


1. Aganang Local Municipality

Yes No - -

2. Ba-Phalaborwa Local Municipality

Yes No - -


3. Bela-Bela Local Municipality

Yes No - -

4. Blouberg Local Municipality

Yes Yes Simple 2007

5. Capricorn District Municipality

Yes No - -

6. Elias Motsoaledi Municipality

Yes No - -

7. Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality

Yes No - -

8. Fetakgomo Local Municipality

Yes No - -

9. Greater Giyani Local Municipality

Yes No - -

10. Greater Letaba Local Municipality

Yes No - -

11. Greater Sekhukhune District Municipality

Yes No - -

12. Greater Tubatse Local Municipality

Yes No - -

13. Greater Tzaneen Local Municipality

Yes Yes Difficult -

14. Lepelle-Nkumpi Local Municipality

Yes No - -

15. Lephalale Local Municipality

Listed GCIS Website inaccessible

No - -

16. Makhado Local Municipality

Yes No - -

17. Makhudutamaga Local Municipality

Yes No - -

18. Maruleng Local Municipality

Yes No - -


19. Modimolle Local Municipality

Yes No - -

20. Mogalakwena Local Municipality

Yes Yes -( the manual was termed a “section 51 manual as opposed to sec 14)

Fairly difficult -

21. Molemole Local Municipality

Yes Yes Fairly difficult 30/05/2012

22. Mookgophong Local Municipality

Website inaccessible No - -

23. Mopani District Municipality

Yes Yes Simple -

24. Musina Local Municipality

Yes No - -

25. Mutale Local Municipality

Yes No - -

26. Polokwane Local Municipality

Yes No - -

27. Thabazimbi Local Municipality

Yes No - -

28. Thulamela Local Municipality

Yes No - -

29. Vhembe District Municipality

Yes No – only link to PAIA

- -

30. Waterberg District Municipality

Yes No - -

Total 30 -30


MPUMALANGA


1. Albert Luthuli Local Municipality

Yes No - -

2. Bushbuckridge Local Municipality

Yes No - -

3. Dipaleseng Local Municipality

Yes No - -

4. Ehlanzeni District Municipality

Yes No - -

5. Emakhazeni Local Municipality

No No - -

6. Emalahleni Local Municipality

Yes No - -

7. Gert Sibande District Municipality

Yes No - -

8. Govan Mbeki Local Municipality

Yes No - -

9. JS Moroka (Dr) Local Municipality

Yes No - -

10. Lekwa Local Municipality

No - www.standerton.com

No - -

11. Mbombela Local Municipality

Yes No - -

12. Mkhondo Local Municipality

Yes No - -

13. Msukaligwa Local Municipality

Yes Yes Easy 2002

14. Nkangala District Municipality

Yes Yes Poor 20/12/2010


15. Nkomazi Local Municipality

Yes No - -

16. Pixley Ka Seme Local Municipality

Yes No - -

17. Steve Tshwete Local Municipality

Yes No- only link to request forms

- -

18. Thaba Chweu Local Municipality

No No - -

19. Thembisile Local Municipality

No No - -

20. Umjindi Local Municipality

Yes Yes Good -

21. Victor Khanye Local Municipality

Yes No - -

Total 21 -21

KWA-ZULU NATAL


1. Abaqulusi Local Municipality

Yes No - -

2. Amajuba District Municipality

Yes Yes Good -

3. Big Five False Bay Local Municipality (The)

Yes No - -

4. Dannhauser Local Municipality

Yes No - -

5. Edumbe Local Municipality

Yes No - -


6. Emadlangeni Local Municipality

Yes No - -

7. Emnambithi - Ladysmith Local Municipality

Yes No - -

8. Endumeni Local Municipality

Yes No - -

9. Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality

Yes Yes Fairly difficult -

10. Greater Kokstad Local Municipality

Yes No - -

11. Hibiscus Coast Local Municipality

Yes No - -

12. Hlabisa Local Municipality

Yes No - -

13. Ilembe District Municipality

Yes No - -

14. Imbabazane Local Municipality

Yes No - -

15. Impendle Local Municipality

Yes No - -

16. Indaka Local Municipality

No No - -

17. Ingwe Local Municipality

Yes No - -

18. Izingolweni Local Municipality

No No - -


19. Jozini Local Municipality

Yes No - -

20. KwaDukuza Local Municipality

Yes No - -

21. KwaSani Local Municipality

Yes No - -

22. Mandeni Local Municipality

Yes No - -

23. Maphumulo Local Municipality

Yes No - -

24. Mbonambi Local Municipality

No No - -

25. Mkhambathini Local Municipality

No No - -

26. Mooi Mpofana Local Municipality

Yes No - -

27. Msinga Local Municipality

Yes No - -

28. Msunduzi Local Municipality

Yes No - -

29. Mthonjaneni Local Municipality

Yes No - -

30. Mtubatuba Local Municipality

Yes No - -

31. Ndwedwe Local Municipality

No No - -

32. Newcastle Local Municipality

Yes No - -

33. Nkandla Local Municipality

Yes No - -


34. Nongoma Local Municipality

Yes No - -

35. Nquthu Local Municipality

Yes Yes Inaccessible -

36. Ntambanana Local Municipality

No No - -

37. Okhahlamba Local Municipality

No No - -

38. Richmond Local Municipality

No No - -

39. Sisonke District Municipality

No No - -

40. Ubuhlebezwe Local Municipality

Yes No - -

41. Ugu District Municipality

No – under construction

No - -

42. Ulundi Local Municipality

Yes No - -

43. Umdoni Local Municipality

Yes No - -

44. Umgungundlovu District Municipality

Yes No - -

45. Umhlabuyalingana Local Municipality

No No - -

46. Umhlathuze Local Municipality

Yes No - -

47. Umlalazi Local Municipality

Yes No - -


48. Umngeni Local Municipality

Yes No - -

49. Umshwati Local Municipality

Yes No - -

50. Umtshezi Local Municipality

Yes No - -

51. Umvoti Local Municipality

No No - -

52. Umzimkhulu Local Municipality

Yes No - -

53. Umzinyathi District Municipality

Yes No - -

54. Umziwabantu Local Municipality

Yes – currently unavailable

No - -

55. Umzumbe Local Municipality

Yes No - -

56. Uphongolo Local Municipality

Yes No - -

57. Uthungulu District Municipality

No No - -

58. Vulamehlo Local Municipality

Yes No - -

59. Zululand District Municipality

Yes No - -

Total (59) -59


GAUTENG PROVINCE


1. City of Joburg Metro Yes Yes Via links 18/10/2010

2. City of Tshwane Metro Yes Manual submitted in 2010

- 2010 version

3. Ekurhuleni Metro Yes Yes Via links -

4. Sedibeng Municipality Yes Yes Via links -

5. Emfuleni Yes Yes Very Difficult 2011

6. Midvaal Yes Yes Simple 2012

7. Lesedi Yes Yes - manual submitted in 2009

8. West Rand District Yes Yes Simple -

9. Mogale City Yes Yes Via links -

10. Randfontein Yes No - -

11. Westonaria Yes Yes Simple 2012

12. Merafong Local Municipality

Yes No - -

TOTAL(12) 10


NORTH WEST

Municipality Website S14 manual Accessibility Version/ Last update

1. Bojanala Platinum District Yes No - -

2. Moretele No No - -

3.Madibeng No No - -

4. Rustenburg Yes No - -

5. Kgetleng Rivier No No - -

6. Moses Kotane Yes No - -

7. Ngaka Modiri Molema District

Yes No - -

8.Ratlou Yes No - -

9. Tswaing No No - -

10. Mafikeng Yes No - -

11. Ditsobotla Yes No - -

12. Ramotshere Moila No No - -

13. Bophirima No No - -

14. Kagisano No No - -

15. Naledi No No - -


16. Mamusa No No - -

17. Greater Taung No No - -

18. Molopo No No - -

19. Lekwa-Taemane Yes No - -

20. Ventersdorp No No - -

21. Tlokwe Yes No - -

22. City of Matlosana Requires password for access

No - -

23. Maquassi Hills No No - -

24. Kenneth Kaunda (Dr) District Municipality

Yes No - -

TOTAL 25 0

FREE STATE


1. Xhariep District Yes No - -

2. Letsemeng No No - -

3. Kopanong Yes No - -

4. Mohokore No No - -


5. Motheo District No No - -

6. Naledi No No - -

7.Mangaung Yes Yes Via links 01/02/2004

8. Mantsopa No No - -

9. Lejweleputswa District Yes No - -

10. Masilonyana Yes No - -

11. Tokologo No No - -

12. Tswelopele Yes Yes - No access - -

13. Matjhabeng Yes No - -

14. Nala Yes No - -

15. Thabo Mafutsanyane District

No No - -

16. Setsoto Yes No - -

17. Dihlabang Yes No - -

18. Nketoana No No - -

19. Maluti a Phofung Yes No - -

20. Phumelela No No - -

21. Fezile Dabi District Yes No - -


22. Moqhaka Yes No - -

23. Ngwathe Yes No - -

24. Metsimaholo Yes No - -

25. Mafube No No - -

TOTAL 25 -2

Local government compliance

A total of 33 municipalities complied with section 14 for this reporting period with non compliant municipalities at 246. Low compliance rates in local government apply both to section 32 reporting and section 14 compliance. Compliance with section 14 is also mandatory. The requirement of having a section 14 manual in place is critical in ensuring that information is easily and readily available to the public. Section 14 manuals are often referred to as “roadmaps” of public institutions as they enable a member of the public to understand how such public institution functions.

Local governments are a crucial sphere of government as it is the first interface between the public and government. Local governments are directly responsible for the delivery of services and as a result, they should demonstrate the highest level of transparency and accessibility. The absence of section 14 manuals suggests that municipalities do not make information freely and easily available. The requirement to have information available for the public is not only a PAIA requirement but is a requirement of the Batho Pele principles. Principle 5 of the Batho Pele makes provision that a member of the public is entitled to getting accurate information.

The Gauteng province has the highest number of compliant municipalities with 10 municipalities complying out of 12. This high compliance rate is commendable and should be emulated by all local departments in other provinces. The North West province has remained non compliant for a period of more than three years. This not only applies to section 14 compliance but to section 32 as well. The Commission in the recent past held an awareness raising intervention in the North West. In preparation for the intervention, the Commission met with officials from the Office of the Premier to sensitize the office of the Premier on PAIA and its requirements. Since that intervention, no response has been forthcoming from the province. The resistance demonstrated by the North West province is of concern and warrants immediate action against the province to address the consistent non compliance.

P A I A A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 1 / 2 0 1 2 P a g e | 128 Conclusion

The general compliance rates are not satisfactory, while noticeable improvement is evident at national and provincial level, local government remains abysmally low. The Commission has developed numerous awareness raising interventions, however, the responsiveness of public institutions and levels of compliance remains dissatisfactory.

In this regard, the Commission recommends that non compliance by public institutions should be punishable. The Commission recommends that it be given enforcement powers to enable it to enforce the penalty and offences provision in section 90 of PAIA.

paia annual reportpmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs/...chapter 9 of the...

Documents