The opposed interlocutory application in the Equality Court was for access to information in which the applicants sought orders that the respondent the FIC* be directed to provide information held by the FIC itself, in terms of s 40 (1)(e) and s 41 (d) of FICA* The information the applicants sought consisted of the following - i) the respondent banks' Risk Management and Compliance Programmes; ii) all reports of suspicious and unusual transaction made to the FIC by accounting bodies to the applicant; iii) same as (ii) but in respect in particular of a Holding Company; iv) all reports of suspicious and unusual transactions made to the FIC by accounting institutions in respect of four subsidiaries. The FIC raised objections in opposition to granting access as follows - i) applicants did not set out a factual and legal basis for entitlement; ii) applicant had no legal right to the information; iii) the application was a fishing expedition; iv) the principle of subsidiary prevented the applicants success by non-compliance with PAIA*; v) the ground given for purpose of litigation came ex post litigation commencement and in the result the Uniform Rules governed access to information; vi) non-joinders of various applicants; vii) the application was not brought in terms of PEPUDA* therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction.

There was an additional attempt to include the argument that applicable legislation precluded access to information due to sensitivity relating to State security that was dealt with succinctly by the honourable Court.The learned Judge discussed there were no provisions in the anti-money laundering laws and regulations that required banks to unilaterally terminate a customer's account and the dictum of 'Know your client' plus the Constitutional sections of the Bill of Rights socio-economic rights regarding profession, housing, health care, food, water and social security, education, equality and human dignity came under scrutiny. The Equality Court was asked to determine the applicants' allegations of unequal treatment, unfair discrimination and persecution compared to other white companies and individuals who were in the news for various regulatory and criminal violations. The Court traversed the relevant Acts' provisions and considered the following - i) Bank Guidance Note 6 of 2022 aside, the banks' private contractual law could not be allowed to ride roughshod over public policy; ii) FIC did not deny it obtained risk management, compliance documentation and even FAFTF* reports from certain banks; iii) the information sought by the applicants had a direct connection to the terminated bank accounts; iv) cited Bowring^ in the matter of joining applications; v) the reports supplied to the FIC by accountable institutions having regard for their reputational and business risk, and anti-bribery legal and regulatory framework was discussed and in terms of fairness, equity and Constitutional values of openness and transparency, access for the applicants, to where the confidential information that was to be accessed from the FIC was granted.

Vide - Ndudane and Others v Financial Intelligence Centre (EC/01/22) [2024] ZAWCHC 38 (13 February 2024). * FIC, Financial Intelligence Centre; Financial Intelligence Centre Act 2001 (Act 38 of 2001); Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000; Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act No., 4 of 2000; An International Body run by anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing groups that atttempt to flag and track arrangements such as inter alia 'beneficial Ownership'. ^Bowring NO v Vrededorp Properties CC and another 2007 (5) SA 391 (SCA). CLT - the applicants are just scratching the surface of a major issue - no doubt, more will follow in due course.