|
Offering citizens access to state-held information is "one of the most effective ways of upholding the constitutional values of transparency, openness, participation and accountability."〔Hoexter ''Administrative Law'' 94.〕 Currie and De Waal suggest that accountability is unattainable if the government has a monopoly on the information that informs its actions and decisions. Access to information is not only fundamental to a properly-functioning participatory democracy; it also increases public confidence in government and enhances its legitimacy. There are also, according to Cora Hoexter, many other benefits to be had. For instance, access to information discourages corruption, arbitrariness and other improper governmental conduct. It facilitates the protection of rights, something that is easily demonstrated in the area of administrative justice. Like reasons for administrative action, access to state-held information can be of enormous assistance to a person who suspects that her rights to administrative justice have been infringed and is in the process of building a case.〔Hoexter ''Administrative Law'' 94-95.〕 == Constitutional right == Before the enactment of the interim Constitution there was no general right of access to information in South Africa. Considerable resources were directed instead towards maintaining secrecy in government. Many statutes contained provisions making it a criminal offence for officials to release information. The inclusion of a right of access to information in state hands was therefore "an innovation of great significance"〔Hoexter ''Administrative Law'' 95.〕 in the interim Constitution. Section 23 conferred on every person "the right of access to all information held by the state or any of its organs at any level of government in so far as such information is required for the exercise or protection of any of his or her rights." In one of the earliest cases to deal with the right Jones J acknowledged its importance in these terms: The purpose of s 23 is to exclude the perpetuation of the old system of administration, a system in which it was possible for government to escape accountability by refusing to disclose information even if it had bearing upon the exercise or protection ofrights of the individual. This is the mischief it is designed to prevent () Demonstrable fairness and openness promotes public confidence in the administration of public affairs generally. This confidence is one of the characteristics of the democratically governed society for which the Constitution strives. The right was soon being relied upon in various contexts, and a body of case law on section 23 developed rapidly. In particular, a number of cases were brought by accused persons who sought access to information contained in police dockets. Today section 32(1) of the Constitution confers on "everyone" a right of access to "(a) any information held by the state; and (b) any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights." Significantly, the first part of the right is far broader than was section 23 of the interim Constitution: The information no longer has to be required for the exercise or protection of rights. Section 32(1)(b) represents yet more innovation, as there was nothing to mirror it in section 23. The focus in this part of the right is not on governmental accountability but on a person’s need for access to and control over information concerning himself. Such information will typically consist of medical or banking records, or the information in the personnel files of the person’s employer. This aspect is closely related to the right to privacy. As Klaaren and Penfold indicate, having access to information about oneself can considerably enhance one's ability to protect rights such as privacy and equality. In addition, the ability to acquire knowledge about oneself is an aspect of "self-actualization." Section 32(1)(b) is also significant as "a guarantee that records passing into private hands as a result of privatisation processes will not be immune from access."〔Hoexter ''Administrative Law'' 96.〕 Section 32(2) required the enactment of national legislation to give effect to the right in section 32(1), and expressly allowed for "reasonable measures to alleviate the administrative and financial burden on the state." The operation of s 32(1) was suspended pending the enactment of the legislation. In the interim, as with the rights to administrative justice, section 32(1) was to be read as if it were section 23 of the interim Constitution. During this period, then, it was not possible to assert the right to information held by "another person." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Access to information in South Africa」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|