The South African History Archive Trust v The South African Reserve Bank and Another

The appellant, a non-governmental organisation, requested access under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) to records held by the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) relating to investigations into serious financial crimes during the apartheid era involving several named individuals. The SARB failed to respond timeously and later refused access. It claimed no records existed for five individuals and refused access in respect of three individuals: the late Brigadier Johan Blaauw, Mr Robert Hill and Mr Vito Palazzolo. The SARB did not notify Mr Hill or Mr Palazzolo of the request as required by s 47 of PAIA, asserting that it believed they were deceased or unreachable. The appellant approached the Gauteng High Court to review and set aside the refusal. The High Court dismissed the application. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court order was set aside. The SARB’s decisions refusing access to the records relating to Brigadier Blaauw, Mr Hill and Mr Palazzolo were declared unlawful and reviewed and set aside. The SARB was directed to grant access to records relating to Brigadier Blaauw, to notify Mr Hill and Mr Palazzolo in terms of s 47 of PAIA within 10 days, and thereafter to comply with PAIA before making any decision. The SARB was ordered to pay costs, including the costs of two counsel.

This case is significant for clarifying the strict procedural obligations imposed on public bodies under PAIA, particularly the centrality of third-party notification and the audi alteram partem principle. It confirms that s 49(2) is a narrow exception and cannot be relied upon where no reasonable steps were taken to notify third parties. The judgment reinforces transparency and accountability in access to information requests involving potentially sensitive third-party information.