We bring together information on the legal frameworks for the right to information from more than 100 countries.
You are here: Home Cases Trustees For the Time Being of the Biowatch Trust v. Registrar Genetic Resources and Others

Trustees For the Time Being of the Biowatch Trust v. Registrar Genetic Resources and Others

last modified Aug 22, 2012 08:58 AM

Case number:
23005/2002
Country:
South Africa
Date of decision:
23 February 2005
Court / Arbiter:
High Court, reviewable by the Supreme Court of Appeal ( Appellate )


Decision:

When denying a request for information about genetically modified corps, the burden of proof lies with the government agency. If the governmental agency is of opinion that information request is not sufficiently specific, it must assist the requester in the process.


Keywords:
Burden of proof (including requests for additional evidence)
Commercial confidentiality (including financial/economic interests of private parties or public authorities)
Constitution
Duty to assist requester (including to help narrow, transfer, or write down a request)
Environment / Natural resources (including natural resource management, environmental impact)
Format (of information requested, the request itself, appeal)
RTI law
Segregability (information should be disclosed if can be segregated from information that may legitimately be withheld)

Case details:

Facts

Biowatch Trust, a non-governmental organization engaged in nature conservation activities, lodged a number of requests asking the Registrar for Genetically Modified Corps to disclose information pertaining to the use of genetically modified organisms in South Africa, including certain risk assessment data (para. 19). The Registrar refused access on the grounds that (1) Biowatch’s request was too broad, and (2) a part of information sought was commercially confidential and its disclosure would harm interests of several companies (para. 24). Biowatch appealed to the High Court.

Decision

The Court recognized that right of access to information is subject to limitations enumerated in Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act . However, “the burden of establishing that the refusal of a request for access is justified rests on the party claiming the refusal”, i.e. the onus to justify limitation of Biowatch’s right to information was on the Registrar (para. 40). In addition, the refusal could not be justified by the mere fact that requests for information were  too broad. If the governmental agency is of the opinion that a request is not sufficiently specific, it is under obligation to assist the requester in identifying the document it is seeking (para. 43).

Although confidentiality of information and potential violation of third parties’ rights are legitimate concerns, they cannot serve as a ground to bar access to all requested information. Thus, the Court reasoned that “Biowatch [should have] access to the information it seeks in any record, or those portions [of] any record, that is or are not immune from disclosure” (para. 47).

The Court concluded that Biowatch had “a clear right to some of the information” and Registrar’s failure to grant access to these documents violated the organization’s rights under section 32(1)(a) of the Constitution (para. 66).

Note: Although the High Court granted eight out of eleven of Biowatch’s requests, it held that because of the sweeping nature of the requests made, governmental authorities did not have to pay the legal costs of the organization. Moreover, the High Court awarded costs against Biowatch in favor of one of the companies, which allegedly was ‘compelled’ to intervene in the proceedings. Due to the economic consequences of such a decision and bearing in mind the chilling effect on similar litigation, Biotwatch appealed the costs’ orders In 2009 South African Constitutional Court held that it is state’s duty to cover costs of a successful applicant in constitutional litigation (para. 56). Given that litigation addressed not a private dispute, but inaction on the part of state authorities, Biowatch was also not obliged to bear the costs of the company (para. 57).

Resources:

Judgment of the Court.

Judgment of the Constitutional Court.