Access to Public Information, Defamation / Reputation
Aécio Neves da Cunha v. Twitter Brasil
Closed Contracts Expression
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
The Supreme Court of Appeal for South Africa held that the Constitution and Access to Information Act allow for access to information held by private parties when reasonably required; the petitioner shareholder’s need for corporate documents was insufficiently pressing in this case.
This analysis was contributed by Right2Info.org.
Andrew Davis, who held 30% of the shares of Clutchco, a family business controlled by his father, made a request for information regarding the company’s finances after being removed as a director of the company. Shareholders are not entitled to this information under the Companies Act, and Davis made the request under Section 50 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), which allows for access to the information of private bodies if “that record is required for the exercise or protection of any right”. That act was itself promulgated in response to Section 32(1) of the Constitution, that creates a right of access to “information held by another person…that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights”.
Davis asserted that he desired the records due to his suspicion that not all the company’s transactions were reflected in its financial statements and that he needed the information to establish the value of his shares. Clutcho refused to provide the information, claiming that Davis only desired the records to harm the company.
The Court recognized the right to private documents under both the Constitution and PAIA but also found that it was subject to limits in that the information must be “required for the exercise or protection of any…rights”. After examining relevant case-law, the Court determined “required” in this context to refer to something that is “reasonably required”, a standard less than that of necessity (para. 13).
In this particular case, the Court found that the Companies Act provides for numerous mechanisms to protect shareholders other than allowing access to financial records, including the requirement that auditors have access to the information, allowing them to make findings as part of their reports. Therefore, a more substantial foundation than that advanced by Davis, who failed to specifically criticize the existing auditors or seek the advice of an experienced accountant, was required for him to receive access to the records in this case.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
This decision restricts public information and potentially freedom of expression.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.