Nkayi and Another v Head of the Security Branch of the SA Police, Pretoria, and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1993 (3) SA 244 (A)

Nkayi and Another v Head of the Security Branch of the SA Police, Pretoria, and Others
1993 (3) SA 244 (A)

1993 (3) SA p244

Citation	1993 (3) SA 244 (A)
Court	Appellate Division
Judge	Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Nestadt JA, Kumleben JA and Goldstone JA
Heard	November 19, 1992
Judgment	February 16, 1993

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Internal security — Detention in terms of s 29 of Internal Security Act C 74 of 1982 — Reports of magistrate and district surgeon visiting detainee in terms of s 29(9) — 'Official information' to which no person other than those mentioned in s 29(7) are entitled — Reports of magistrate and district surgeon as to personal information concerning physical and mental health and well-being of detainee not 'official information' as intended D in s 29(7) — Section 29(7) accordingly not precluding procurement of reports of magistrate or district surgeon arising out of visits to detainee pursuant s 29(9) for purposes of instituted court proceedings.

Headnote : Kopnota

Information in a report of a magistrate or district surgeon who has visited, pursuant to s 29(9) of the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982, a E person detained in terms of s 29 of that Act concerning such detainee's physical and mental health and well-being is not 'official information' as intended in s 29(7) of the Act (to which no person other than those referred to in s 29(7) are entitled). Section 29(7) accordingly does not prevent a magistrate or district surgeon from disclosing personal information relating to a detainee or from giving evidence in that regard in any court proceedings.

The dictum in Cooper and Others v Minister of Police and Others 1977 (2) SA 209 (T) at 212A-B not approved. F

The dicta in Nxasana v Minister of Justice and Another 1976 (3) SA 745 (D) at 755F-H and in Mkhize v Minister of Law and Order and Another 1985 (4) SA 147 (N) at 151J-152B approved.

The Court accordingly held that s 29(7) of the Internal Security Act 1982 did not necessarily preclude the procurement of reports of a magistrate and district surgeon, arising out of visits to a detainee made pursuant to s 29(9) of the Act, for the purposes of instituted court proceedings. G

The decision in the South Eastern Cape Local Division in Nkayi and Another v Head of the Security Branch of the SA Police, Pretoria, and Others reversed.

Case Information

Appeal from a decision in the South Eastern Cape Local Division (Ludorf J). The facts appear from the judgment of Kumleben JA.

H D Chetty for the appellants: The trial Court's finding that the relief sought was not procedural was based on the fact, so the Court reasoned, '(that) it is not the applicants' case that the material sought is required for the purposes of running, pending or proposed litigation'. Substantive law is concerned with the ends which the administration of justice seeks; procedural law deals with the means and instruments by I which those ends are to be attained. Salmond Jurisprudence 11th ed at 504; Universal City Studios Inc and Others v Network Video (Pty) Ltd 1986 (2) SA 734 (A) at 754J; Zeffertt 'Substance, Procedure and Reservoirs of Power' (1990) 107 South African Law Journal at 579-83. The distinction between substantive and procedural relief was and is irrelevant to the determination of the issue in the Court a quo and consequently on appeal. J The Supreme Court has

1993 (3) SA p245

A inherent power over its own procedure. Ncoweni v Bezuidenhout 1927 CPD 130; Nxasana v Minister of Justice and Another 1976 (3) SA 745 (D) at 751H-I. The reports of the district surgeon and magistrate would have been an indispensable aid in assisting the Court in finally adjudicating the matter. It is clear from the applicants' affidavits that their belief that the reports would contain negative information concerning the detainees' B state of health was influenced by the experiences recounted to them by Melisizwe Msizi and Nomadithini Msizi. It is evident that the purpose of the visit, in terms of s 29(9) of the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982, by the magistrate and district surgeon is, inter alia, to enable the magistrate to make enquiries of the detainee as to the conditions of his detention and for the district surgeon to do likewise in respect of the C detainee's physical and mental well-being. Mkhize v Minister of Law and Order and Another 1985 (4) SA 147 (N) at 150E; S v Yengeni and Others (1) 1990 (1) SA 639 (C) at 645I-646C. The order sought in para 2(b) and (c) of the applicants' notice of motion referred to the reports envisaged by s 29(9)(a) and (b) of the Act. The information which the magistrate and the district surgeon would elicit from a detainee would fall squarely within D the parameters of s 29(9) and the standing directions regulating the detention and interrogation of persons held in terms of the section. It is clear from the Act that the purpose of the visits by the magistrate and district surgeon is circumscribed. The section clearly postulates that the questions and answers are confined to the purpose of such visits. It is E clear from the judgment of the Court a quo that the line of reasoning adopted failed to appreciate the differentiation between the purposes of detention pursuant to s 29 and the purpose of the visits pursuant to s 29(9)(a) and (b). Accordingly the Court a quo misdirected itself in refusing the relief sought. The remaining question raised in the judgment F of the Court a quo relates to the phrase 'official information'. The Court a quo held that it was precluded from adjudicating whether specific information constituted 'official information'. The information envisaged by s 29(9)(a) and (b) cannot be construed as constituting 'official information'. S v Moumbaris and Others 1973 (3) SA 109 (T) at 116C-117C; Nxasana v Minister of Justice and Another (supra at 745D-757B); S v Mzo G and Others 1984 (3) SA 945 (E) at 948D; Mkhize (supra at 150A-152C); Mda v Minister of Justice, Police and Prisons and Another 1986 (3) SA 500 (Ck) at 506C-H. The reasoning adopted in the above cited cases is clearly to be preferred to that adopted in Cooper and Others v Minister of Police and Others 1977 (2) SA 209 (T).

H P J de Bruyn SC for the respondents: Die regshulp en inligting wat applikante aangevra het, is 'amptelike inligting' soos uiteengesit in art 29(7) van die Wet op Binnelandse Veiligheid 74 van 1982. Cooper and Others v Minister of Police and Others 1977 (2) SA 209 (T) op 212A-D. Die woord 'amptelik' beteken dat die landdros en distriksgeneesheer die inligting uit krag van 'n amp kry. Beide ampte word uitdruklik na verwys in art I 29(7). In die Engelse konteks beteken die word 'official' die volgende: 'discharge of duties'; 'derived from (or vouched for by) person(s) in office'; 'properly authorised'. Concise Oxford English Dictionary. 'Amptelik' in die Afrikaanse konteks beteken 'uit krag van 'n amp'. Kritzinger en andere Verklarende Afrikaanse Woordeboek. In art 234(1) van J die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977 word 'n amptelike dokument beskryf as

1993 (3) SA p246

A een 'wat uit hoofde van sy amp in die bewaring of onder die beheer van 'n beampte van die Staat is . . .'. Juis uit art 29 spruit die volgende regulasie voort:

'34.

'n Landdros of distriksgeneesheer wat ingevolge die bepalings van art 29(9) van die Wet 'n aangehoudene besoek, moet 'n verslag ten B opsigte van sodanige besoek opstel en sodanige verslag aan die kantoor van die Direkteur van Veiligheidswetgewing en die Afdelingskommissaris voorlê.

35.

Indien 'n inspekteur van aangehoudenes, 'n landdros of distriksgeneesheer enige klagtes ontvang oor beweerde swak behandeling van 'n aangehoudene of oor enigiets wat die administrasie van die inrigting of plek waar 'n aangehoudene aangehou word, raak, moet hy na afloop van sy besoek die C aangeleentheid skriftelik aan die hoof van daardie inrigting of plek rapporteer en dié feit en die naam van die persoon aan wie die aangeleentheid gerapporteer is, in sy verslag vermeld. In die daaropvolgende verslag van die inspekteur van aangehoudenes, landdros of distriksgeneesheer, na gelang van die geval, moet vermeld word of die aangeleentheid reggestel is al dan nie.'

Staatskoerant 8467 van 3 Desember 1982, Kennisgewing 877 van 1982. Sien S v Moumbaris and Others 1973 (3) SA 109 (T) op 116C-F ten aansien van die omskrywing van 'amptelik'. By die uitleg van art 29(7) en art 29(9) moet daar nie voorkeur gegee word aan die streng uitleg ten gunste van die individu wat die regshulp aanvra of 'n gedwonge uitleg nie, maar moet die betekenis van die artikels vasgestel word in die lig van die omstandighede E waaronder dit uitgevaardig is en die algemene doel wat die Wetgewer in gedagte gehad het. Rossouw v Sachs 1964 (2) SA 551 (A) op 563H en 564A-D; Nkwentsha v Minister of Law and Order and Another 1988 (3) SA 99 (A) op 112H-I. Tans is daar teenstrydige beslissings in die Transvaalse en Natalse Provinsiale Afdelings. Die Cooper-saak supra; Nxasana v Minister F of Justice and Another 1976 (3) SA 745 (D); Mkhize v Minister of Law and Order 1985 (4) SA 147 (N). Die uitspraak van Cooper (supra) is gekritiseer deur Didcott R in die saak van Nxasana (supra). Die regshulp wat die applikant aangevra het in die Nxasana-saak is onderskeibaar van die regshulp wat die appellante aangevra het. Die applikante in daardie saak G het by die Hof aansoek gedoen om inligting te verkry van die aangehoudene, en nie om die verslae in terme van art 29(9) in die hande te kry soos wat appellante tans beoog nie. Die verbod in art 29(7) is nie gerig op die persone wat die inligting verkry nie, maar op persone wat daarop aandring. Die Staat kan dus inligting bekend maak, maar derdes kan nie daarop H aandring nie. Apleni v Minister of Law and Order 1989 (1) SA 195 (A) op 199G-H; S v Mzo 1984 (3) SA 945 (OK) op 948E-G; Nkwentsha (supra op...