PAIA Civil Society Network Shadow Report: 2010

The PAIA Civil Society Network (PAIA CSN) report provides an analysis of the implementation and usage of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) in South Africa between August 2009 and August 2010. The report highlights systemic failures in records management, poor responsiveness from public and private bodies, and the limited use of the Act as a human rights advocacy tool. It further expresses strong opposition to the Protection of Information Bill, arguing that its broad definitions and criminal sanctions threaten open governance and the protection of whistleblowers and journalists.

• The implementation of PAIA remains inefficient, with only 34 per cent of analyzed requests resulting in a full release of information. A significant portion of these successful releases were only achieved after an internal appeal was filed.
• Responsiveness to information requests is poor; only 21 per cent of requests were answered within the legally mandated 30-day timeframe. Furthermore, public and private bodies rarely utilize the legal mechanism to request extensions of time under section 26 of the Act, with only one such request recorded out of 111 total applications.
• Poor records management is a primary barrier to information access. Approximately 69 per cent of refusals by public bodies were based on the claim that documents could not be found or did not exist under section 23 of the Act, even in cases where evidence suggested the documents had previously existed.
• PAIA is predominantly used to retrieve personal information rather than for human rights advocacy. A high volume of requests are directed toward the National Archive for personal Security Legislation Directorate files, and many requests to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development concern the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
• The private sector demonstrates a significant lack of awareness and willingness to comply with PAIA. The report notes that private bodies often impose requirements not found in the Act, such as demanding a 'strong link' between the right being protected and the information requested, or charging fees per document rather than per request.
• The lack of an internal appeal mechanism for private bodies and the high cost of court proceedings make legal recourse inaccessible for civil society. The report advocates for the establishment of an independent Information Commissioner or tribunal to resolve disputes.
• The Protection of Information Bill is viewed as a threat to open governance due to its broad definitions of 'national interest', severe criminal penalties for releasing classified information, and the absence of a public interest clause. These factors are expected to discourage whistleblowers and journalists and lead information officers to favor secrecy over openness.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2010). PAIA Civil Society Network Shadow Report: 2010. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PAIAShadowReport2010Final.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. PAIA Civil Society Network Shadow Report: 2010. 2010. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PAIAShadowReport2010Final.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=PAIA Civil Society Network Shadow Report: 2010 |date=2010 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PAIAShadowReport2010Final.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrights2010paia, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{PAIA Civil Society Network Shadow Report: 2010}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2010}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PAIAShadowReport2010Final.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }