Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1] This is an opposed interlocutory application for access to information in which the applicants sought orders that the respondent (FIC) be directed to provide information which was held by the FIC as set out in terms of section 40(1)(e) and section 41(d) and (e) of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, 2001 (Act No. 38 of 2001) (FICA).

[2] The information sought by the applicants consisted of the following:

2.1 The Risk Management and Compliance Programmes of ABSA Bank Ltd, FirstRand Bank Ltd, Investec Bank Ltd, Nedbank Limited and Standard Bank of South Africa Limited who are respondent banks or accounting institutions who were cited in the main Equality Court application.

2.2 All reports of suspicious and unusual transactions made to the FIC by accounting institutions in respect of the applicants.

2.3 All reports of suspicious and unusual transactions made to the FIC by accounting institutions in respect of Sekunjalo Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and the entities associated with the Sekunjalo Group. The Sekunjalo Group consisted of the complainants who sought relief in the main Equality Court application.

2.4 All reports of suspicious and unusual transactions made to the FIC by accounting institutions in respect of EOH Holdings and its subsidiaries, KPMG Services Proprietary Limited South Africa. Steinhoff International Holdings NV and Tongaat Hullet Development.

[3] The FIC raised several objections in opposition to the granting of access to information. The FIC basis was as follows:

3.1 The applicants did not set out any factual or legal basis for entitlement to the information sought.

3.2 The applicants had not legal right to the information.

3.3 The application was a fishing expedition.

3.4 To the extent that the applicants relied on the constitutional rights of access to information, the principle of subsidiary prevented them from that without complying with the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000 (PAIA). They applicants failed to do so.

3.5 In any event, the information sought was for the purpose of litigation, after the commencement of that litigation, and as such the Uniform Rules governed access to information.

3.6 The applicants failed to join the banks and other affected entities whose documents were sought.