SARS Commissioner Stands Firm on Withholding Zuma's Tax Information

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) Commissioner, Edward Kieswetter, has maintained a firm stance on the refusal to disclose former president Jacob Zuma's tax records. This decision persists despite a landmark Constitutional Court ruling that declared blanket tax secrecy unconstitutional. Kieswetter asserts that the disclosure of Zuma's tax records for the years 2010-2018, corresponding to his presidency, does not meet the standards needed to reveal any substantial non-compliance with the law.

The persistence of secrecy surrounding Zuma's tax filings, especially amid credible accusations that he did not file annual returns during his presidential tenure, raises important questions about transparency and accountability for public figures. The South African public, whose interest in the integrity of its leaders is legitimate and necessary for a functioning democracy, remains in the dark concerning the former president's adherence to tax obligations.

Investigative media bodies AmaBhungane and the Financial Mail have actively pursued the release of these records through the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). Following the May 2023 Constitutional Court judgment, which called for a public interest override in such matters, they submitted a revised PAIA application to SARS in October, requesting not just the tax returns but also additional documents that might clarify how SARS handled Zuma's fiscal affairs.

The application also aimed to investigate allegations about Zuma's financial ties to Royal Security, a company owned by ANC-linked Roy Moodley, during his presidency—an accusation brought to the fore by Jacques Pauw's book "The President's Keepers."

SARS responded with various reasons for non-disclosure, citing missing or non-existent documents and concerns about jeopardizing ongoing criminal proceedings connected to Zuma's charges regarding the 1999 Arms Deal.

Moreover, SARS underlined a lack of written consent from Zuma or Royal Security as a basis for withholding information, without clarifying whether they had approached either for consent. This detail undermines the public's confidence in the institution's willingness to uphold transparency in high-profile cases.

This SARS tax record saga parallels another fierce public access dispute, where the Democratic Alliance sought minutes from the ANC's cadre deployment committee. The highest court's rejection of the ANC's appeal to keep these records confidential signifies a step towards greater transparency within South Africa's political landscape.

AmaBhungane and the Financial Mail intend to persist in their pursuit, planning to seek further clarification on the missing records from SARS and considering an appeal to the Information Regulator. Their diligence symbolizes a struggle against the veil of tax secrecy that shields the influential, reinforcing the necessity for transparency in the financial obligations of individuals, particularly those in positions of power.

The resolution of the Zuma case, as it progresses, will be pivotal as both a testament to the media's persistence in the pursuit of public interest and to the strength of South Africa's legal framework in enforcing its newly clarified principles around tax secrecy and the public's right to information.