Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due date: March 2026
QUESTION 1: PAIA AND JUDICIAL ACCESS RIGHTS (2 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
In Brümmer v Minister for Social Development and Others the Constitutional Court had to
confront a recurring constitutional tension: the state must give practical effect to the right
of access to information in section 32 of the Constitution, but legislation regulating that
right may include procedural gateways that can either facilitate or frustrate access. The
case turned on whether PAIA’s strict litigation time bar in section 78(2) (then requiring
court applications ―within 30 days‖) struck a constitutionally permissible balance between
efficient administration and meaningful enforcement of section 32 rights.1
The Court began by locating the dispute within a broader enforcement framework. Mr
Brümmer, a journalist, requested tender-related records from the Department of Social
Development under PAIA to report accurately on a matter of public concern.1 After internal
refusal and dismissal of his internal appeal, he approached the High Court outside the 30-
day period and sought condonation. The High Court refused condonation, yet also
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen
as a replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged
to perform their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific
assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the
information in these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content.
The buyer is responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when
applying it to their assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's
policies regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and
sources of inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may
be considered academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences
arising from the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or
any other negative consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, QUESTION 1: PAIA AND JUDICIAL ACCESS RIGHTS (2 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
In Brümmer v Minister for Social Development and Others the Constitutional Court
had to confront a recurring constitutional tension: the state must give practical effect
to the right of access to information in section 32 of the Constitution, but legislation
regulating that right may include procedural gateways that can either facilitate or
frustrate access. The case turned on whether PAIA’s strict litigation time bar in
section 78(2) (then requiring court applications ―within 30 days‖) struck a
constitutionally permissible balance between efficient administration and meaningful
enforcement of section 32 rights.1
The Court began by locating the dispute within a broader enforcement framework.
Mr Brümmer, a journalist, requested tender-related records from the Department of
Social Development under PAIA to report accurately on a matter of public concern.2
After internal refusal and dismissal of his internal appeal, he approached the High
Court outside the 30-day period and sought condonation. The High Court refused
condonation, yet also declared section 78(2) unconstitutional, triggering confirmation
proceedings in the Constitutional Court.3 The Constitutional Court treated the matter
as one implicating both section 32 (substantive access to information) and section 34
(access to courts), because procedural rules that make enforcement practically
impossible do not merely regulate a right; they can amount to a denial of it.4
A key interpretive step was resolving PAIA’s internal inconsistency about time
periods. Section 77(5)(c)(i) indicated 60 days in some circumstances, while section
78(2) stated 30 days. The Court held the statute could not be harmonised on this
point and that section 78(2), housed in the chapter specifically governing court
applications, had to prevail as the operative provision.5 This clarified the
constitutional target: the 30-day time bar in section 78(2) was the real procedural
limitation shaping access to judicial remedy. The Court’s approach here matters for
reconciliation: it refused to evade the constitutional question by choosing the
1
Brümmer v Minister for Social Development and Others (CCT 25/09) [2009] ZACC 21, 2009 (6) SA
323 (CC) (13 August 2009) (Brümmer) para 1.
2
Brümmer (n 1) paras 1–6.
3
Brümmer (n 1) paras 7–16.
4
Brümmer (n 1) paras 2–3, 64–66.
5
Brümmer (n 1) paras 52–63.