BEFORE THE INFORMATION REGULATOR

COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE JSC'S ILLEGAL FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH PAIA  

AND

REQUESTS THAT THE JSC AND THE OCJ BE ASSESSED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH PAIA

December 2025

IR - Information Regulator

JSC - Judicial Service Commission

JCC - Judicial Conduct Committee

OCJ - Office of the Chief Justice

PAIA - Promotion of Access to Information Act

___

1. On 8 September 2025, a complaint to the IR under section 77A of PAIA about the JSC's illegal refusal of access to one of its records duly requested on 31 July 2025, namely for any record reflecting the names of the three judges allocated to decide the appeal in the Waglay JP judicial corruption case.

IR case no. CI 238-25

Outcome: The IR fails to investigate; but since the requested information later appears in the JCC Appeal Committee's decision on 19 December 2025 to uphold the appeal, the complaint becomes practically moot.

___

2. On 6 November 2025, a request to the IR under section 77H of PAIA that the JSC be assessed for PAIA compliance.

IR case no. CM 125-15

Outcome: On 15 December 2025 the IR declines to conduct the requested assessment, missing the basic point that the OCJ and JSC are distinct public entities.

___

3. On 10 November 2025, a complaint to the IR under section 77A of PAIA about the JSC's illegal refusal of access to several of its records duly requested on 22 September 2025.

IR case no. CI 390-25

Outcome: The IR's 'Pre-Investigation Report' on 3 December 2025:

(a) misdescribes the request in mentioning only one group of ten records of a total of twenty-seven unrelated records, then later lists them all;

(b) confirms that no appeal lies against the tacit refusal of the request, then falsely claims an appeal was made and dismissed;

(c) states that since the records request was filed with a public body, the rights to be exercised or protected need not be disclosed, when it's elementary under PAIA that entitlement to public body records is not contingent on having any such rights;

(d) confirms the complaint was filed timeously, then falsely claims it was filed out of time, i.e. outside the six months permitted by the Act, when in truth it was filed within two weeks of the tactit refusal of the request;

(e) mentions two Deputy Information Officers of the OCJ who aren't Deputy Information Officers of the JSC -- a different public entity;

(f) confirms that no condonation application to thr IR was necessary ('N/A') because the complaint was filed timeously, then claims there are no reasonable grounds for condoning the late submission of the complaint; and,

(g) finally rejects the manifestly serious complaint as 'frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith' so 'any further action is unecessary or inappropriate'.

___

4. On 14 November 2025, a request to the IR under section 77H of PAIA that the OCJ be assessed for PAIA compliance.

IR case no. CM 127-25

Outcome: On 2 December 2025, the IR responds, providing (i) its PAIA compliance report on the OCJ in 2024 following an assessment of it in 2023, and (ii) the OCJ's PAIA manual. An imperfect but practically satisfactory response. Take-away: As suspected, it seems clear that Nelson Phakola holds no written delegation as OCJ deputy officer issued by the OCJ's information officer in terms of section 17(6) of PAIA, and therefore isn't a deputy information officer, contrary to the OCJ's PAIA manual's incorrect claim in its section 5 that he is.

***