Jacob Zuma Foundation Threatens Court Action Over Order to Release Tax Records

The Jacob Zuma Foundation has once again entered the legal spotlight, announcing that it will take court action should the South African Revenue Service (SARS) proceed with releasing the former president’s tax information. This comes after the Information Regulator of South Africa (IRSA) instructed SARS to hand over the documents, ruling that the public interest in transparency outweighs the usual confidentiality attached to tax records.

According to the Foundation, any attempt to publish or disclose Jacob Zuma’s private tax details will be challenged urgently in court. The organisation insists that the directive violates Zuma’s rights to privacy and constitutional protections relating to personal financial information. The development has reignited long-standing debates over public accountability, executive power, transparency, and whether politically connected individuals should receive special treatment from state institutions.

The journey toward the possible release of Jacob Zuma’s tax records dates back to 2019, when investigative journalism organisation amaBhungane first applied to SARS for access to the documents. The request was made under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), but SARS rejected it on the grounds that the law prohibits releasing taxpayer information unless certain strict conditions are met.

Caroline James from amaBhungane explained that the process has taken years of persistence and extensive litigation. “It has taken a very long time to get here,” she said, reflecting on a seven-year timeline full of legal obstacles. When the initial application failed, amaBhungane escalated the matter through the courts, leading eventually to a landmark ruling from the Constitutional Court.

Jacob Zuma Faces New Legal Battle After Information Regulator Directs SARS

When the case reached the Constitutional Court, the outcome shifted the legal framework around tax confidentiality. The court ruled that there must be an exception for situations in which the public interest outweighs the confidentiality protections outlined in the Tax Administration Act. This means that, in exceptional cases, tax records may be disclosed if doing so serves a significant public purpose.

Following that ruling, amaBhungane submitted a second application to SARS, relying on the newly clarified “public interest override.” Once again, however, SARS rejected the request, arguing that there was no sufficient evidence suggesting that Jacob Zuma had committed any tax-related offences—an element that SARS said the law required before information could be disclosed.

After SARS’s second refusal, amaBhungane turned to the Information Regulator of South Africa, which has the authority to review and overturn government decisions denying access to information.

According to James, the regulator conducted its assessment and concluded that several conditions for a public interest disclosure had been met. “The regulator said it was very clear that the documents—the tax records and various information around his tax affairs—would reveal that Jacob Zuma had contravened tax laws,” she explained.

The Information Regulator went further, stating that the release of the documents would likely expose that SARS itself may have breached its legal obligations by adopting what it described as a “soft approach” toward Zuma during his presidency. This raised questions about whether SARS applied its laws consistently across taxpayers or whether politically connected individuals received preferential treatment.

Under Chapter 6 of the Tax Administration Act of 2011, confidentiality of taxpayer information is a core principle designed to protect the privacy of individuals and ensure trust in the tax system. However, the law does allow for exceptions—particularly in cases of public interest.

The 2023 case of Arena Holdings v SARS solidified the legal principle that confidentiality is not absolute. The ruling confirmed that under PAIA, public interest can override statutory confidentiality in cases where the disclosure would reveal wrongdoing or shed light on institutional failures.

This legal evolution is what ultimately empowered IRSA to order SARS to release Jacob Zuma’s tax records.

Despite the regulator’s findings, the Jacob Zuma Foundation remains adamant that the directive infringes Zuma’s rights. The Foundation argues that releasing such information sets a dangerous precedent and undermines fundamental privacy protections guaranteed to all South Africans.

According to the Foundation, it will file legal papers should SARS take any step toward complying with the regulator’s order. This all but guarantees another high-profile court showdown—a familiar landscape for Zuma, who has spent much of the past decade navigating legal challenges.

SARS must now indicate whether it will comply with IRSA’s ruling or seek its own legal remedy. Either way, the stage is set for yet another significant legal debate involving Jacob Zuma, transparency, and government accountability.

Source- EWN