[ad_1]
That is the argument of defender Dali Mpofu, who represents Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhebane in her request for access to confidential taxpayer information.
Public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane at the Johannesburg Constitutional Court on July 22, 2019. Image: Sethembiso Zulu / EWN
CAPE TOWN – The Constitutional Court has heard that privacy rights sometimes have to yield to the State’s obligations in fighting crime.
That is the argument of Attorney Dali Mpofu, who represented Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhebane in his request to access confidential taxpayer information.
In March, the North Gauteng High Court ruled that Mkwebane’s powers of subpoena do not extend to taxpayer records.
The case stems from allegations that former President Jacob Zuma received payments from Royal Security but failed to pay income tax.
Mkhwebane sought access to Zuma’s tax records, but the South African Revenue Service rejected his request, saying he was subject to the secrecy and confidentiality regime outlined in the Tax Administration Act.
Mpofu stressed that, while privacy rights were important, they could not hinder the fight against crime.
“I’m saying similarly, the rights in Section 14 have to yield to the anti-corruption goals of the Public Protection Act.”
Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng said there must be a balance between access to information and the constitutional right to privacy.
Mpofu said that privacy rights would not be unduly hampered, as the Public Defender of the Protector Law has mechanisms that prohibit the sharing of such information.
Download the EWN app on your iOS or Android device.
[ad_2]
