Johannesburg records request becomes a deemed refusal

Johannesburg Mayor Dada Morero pledged that his administration would not hide financial misconduct or misuse of public money. Within days, however, the City acknowledged that it had failed to decide on a Promotion of Access to Information Act request for records concerning billions of rands in alleged wrongdoing. The records remain undisclosed, while the requester has been directed to use the Act’s internal appeal process.

A promise of accountability meets an unanswered request

At a financial accountability gathering in Brixton on 6 October, Morero told municipal officials, political leaders and representatives of the Auditor-General and Gauteng Provincial Treasury that officials who misused public funds would be held accountable regardless of rank. He said residents deserved to know how their money was spent and that the City would not hide its failures. Those commitments coincided with questions about a Paia application submitted by Daily Maverick on 3 August. The request sought records on financial misconduct investigations, disciplinary proceedings, criminal referrals and the recovery of public money. The mayor’s office did not respond by the requested deadline of 5pm on 8 October.

The records sought concern billions in alleged wrongdoing

The application followed a Johannesburg City Council meeting on 22 July at which 13 alleged financial misconduct matters involving approximately R4.07-billion were considered behind closed doors. The underlying forensic reports and the identities of officials allegedly implicated were not made public. A separate figure, R45.16-billion in unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure recorded over five years, raised further questions. The source makes clear that these figures concern different categories and periods and cannot simply be added together. Investigations had also produced recommendations for disciplinary action against 68 officials. No finding in the source establishes that any named person committed misconduct, and the City has not provided the requested records or explained why they should be withheld.

What a deemed refusal means under Paia

Paia ordinarily gives a public body 30 calendar days to decide whether to release requested records. In certain circumstances, that period may be extended by another 30 days. The City initially told Daily Maverick that its deadline had been extended until 6 November, and the requester challenged the calculation, including the use of court days rather than calendar days. On 8 October, the City’s Paia office acknowledged that the decision period had expired and classified the request as a deemed refusal under section 27 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000. This does not prove that the records are confidential or that withholding them is lawful. It means the failure to communicate a decision is treated as a refusal, leaving the requester to challenge that failure.

An internal appeal is the next legal step

The City advised Daily Maverick to lodge an internal appeal under sections 74 and 75 of Paia and enclosed the prescribed form. It also said internal remedies must be exhausted before a court can be approached. More than two months after the original application, the requested information remained undisclosed. The City’s correspondence acknowledging the deemed refusal did not answer the questions sent to Morero’s office about the apparent contradiction between his speech and the handling of the request. The mayor’s office also did not say whether Morero supported disclosure before the municipal elections scheduled for 4 November. The episode illustrates the distinction between investigating alleged misconduct and demonstrating accountability through timely decisions, disclosure where required and information about consequences or recovered money.

Reported from dailymaverick.co.za, 2026-10-11. The Tender Wire is published by Otnox.