Johannesburg - Constitutional Court judges are holding a key that could lift the veil of secrecy into political party funding.
At the core of the matter under their consideration is whether political parties should be legally compelled to disclose information on their private funders and the sums of money donated.
My Vote Counts, a campaign for improved accountability and transparency in elections and politics, argued on Tuesday that the law as it currently stands had limitations as it deprived members of the public rights to access to information and to make informed decisions on which party to support prior to voting.
Constitutional Court judges therefore had to make an order imposing an obligation on Parliament to enact such obligation as per provisions of the constitution, argued advocate David Unterhalter SC, on behalf of the organisation.
While Parliament had passed the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) to give effect to the constitutional right of “access to any information held by the state and… another person” that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights, Paia “says nothing about their (political parties’) duty to keep records”, Unterhalter argued.
“There’s no obligations under Paia to keep records (list of donors and the amounts of money donated).
“What we say is that Paia has simply not regulated this issue. There’s an absence of regulations on this matter. What we have in Paia is a narrow case,” Unterhalter said.
He argued further that “the right to vote is at the heart of this matter”, as the public would be in a position to make well-informed decisions regarding the parties they voted for.
But in counter-argument, advocate Wim Trengove SC, for Parliament, dismissed arguments that Paia failed to give effect to Section 32(2) of the constitution, saying Paia fully “purports to fulfil Section 32(2) completely”.
“The application is self-defeating because it is founded on the applicant’s contention that access to information about the private funding of political parties is essential for the effective exercise of the right to vote.
“If this contention is correct, then Paia already provides for public access to the information concerned,” Trengove argued.
He cited Section 14 of the constitution, saying it “protects the privacy of the information of private bodies”.
“Political parties are private bodies who carry out public functions. When they receive funds, it is hard to say how that function can be public,” Trengove said.
But Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng pointed out that the difficulty with privacy could arise from a situation where the country could be taken over by “a party with questionable donors”.
Trengove’s response was that it would still be futile to request information on such donors, as such transactions were often done personally, and not through any form of recorded communication.
He further argued for the dismissal of the case, saying “the suggestion that Parliament has failed to justify its failure to enact the legislation for which the applicant contends is incorrect”.
Judgment was reserved.
The Star