Information Regulator Vacancies: Interviews

Meeting report

As the term of the Information Regulator was coming to an end on 30 November 2021, the Portfolio Committee convened to interview candidates to serve on the Information Regulator. The interview would select four candidates to fill the four vacant positions at the regulator. Of the four vacancies, three were full-time and one was a part-time position. The candidates to be interviewed for the day were Adv P Tlakula, Adv J Weapond, Mr E Pillay, Dr S Tladi, Adv L Stroom-Nzama, Mr F Gwala, Prof J Van Rooyen, and Ms A Baniparsadh.

The Chairperson asked if Members had received the interview questions and indicated that each of them would have a five-minute time limit for their interactions with candidates. Members then picked the questions that they were going to ask the candidates.

For responses to the questions, refer to the audio.

Candidate 1: Ms Anchal Baniparsadh
The Chairperson asked the candidate to introduce herself, who she was, and to explain given her experience, values and opinions, why she was suitable for the vacant position.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if she would be available to serve in a full-time or part-time capacity. He asked how she would balance her responsibilities as a regulator and her other responsibilities.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if there was anything else, other than what she had already declared in her application, that she would like to disclose to the committee. He emphasised the importance of disclosing such information as otherwise it could bring the reputation of the Information Regulator into question.

Mr R Dyantyi (ANC) asked the candidate to explain her understanding of the balance between protecting personal data and privacy on the one hand and promoting recourse for those who demand they should have the access to certain information on the other.

As the candidate did not accurately grasp the question, Mr Dyantyi requested the candidate to summarise her answer in one sentence.

Mr Dyantyi remarked that the process as provided by the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) has often proved to be tedious for accessing information. He asked the candidate what practical steps she would initiate to enhance the community’s access to all these PAIA procedures if she were appointed.

Mr X Nqola (ANC) asked the candidate to explain the roles of the Information Regulator. He asked the candidate to clarify and give examples of specific matters which the Information Regulator needed to consider when executing its powers and duties.

Mr Nqola asked why it was required in the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) that the role of the Information Regulator should be both impartial and independent.

Mr Nqola asked if she believed that the Information Regulator should be included in government’s discussions on the digital economy and the fourth industrial revolution and to provide reasons.

Ms G Breytenbach (DA) said that as POPIA is now fully operational and the candidate would be joining the Regulator at a time when POPIA was at its implementation stage, she asked how the candidate could contribute to the success of this implementation phase.

Ms Breytenbach asked the candidate to identify the key challenges or risks which the Information Regulator faced as it went about establishing itself. Following that, she asked the candidate to provide the corresponding mitigation strategies to solve those challenges and risks.

Mr W Horn (DA) commented on the right to privacy as contained in the POPIA. However, those rights were not the only rights that had been referred to in legislation. He made reference to the amaBhungane case in which the Constitutional Court found certain sections of RICA to be unconstitutional, particularly the sections on the permission given to the state to do communication surveillance. The ConCourt has given Parliament a three-year period to review RICA. He asked the candidate to give some inputs on which aspects of the legislation should be reviewed. The ultimate objective of the review is to ensure that citizens’ right to privacy is protected as well as enable the state to do surveillance for security purposes without infringing on a citizen’s right to privacy.

Mr Horn commented on the large-scale data breaches where the personal information of South Africans were shared or leaked online such as in the case of Standard Bank and the Department of Justice. In all these cases, the Information Regulator would subsequently issue a statement to say that it was not happy with the breaches and would engage with those institutions about strengthening the security of their systems. He asked the candidate to comment if that was sufficient in terms of POPIA. He asked if she thought that the reaction of the Information Regulator was proactive or reactive.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) remarked that the global COVID-19 pandemic has generated privacy and data protection compliance concerns. One of the concerns was that the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for increased data sharing. She asked the candidate to give examples of some of the data protection concerns during the pandemic.

As South Africa just had its local government elections, it was inevitable that citizens’ personal information data was handled by different role players in the election such as election management bodies, election monitors and political parties. As digital campaigning is here to stay, Ms Newhoudt-Druchen emphasised the importance of the lawful processing of citizens’ personal information. She asked the candidate to elaborate on this statement.

Ms Maseko-Jele (ANC) asked the candidate to explain how the Information Regulator could balance between protecting citizens’ personal data as well as ensuring their internet freedom.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate to identify some of the challenges that existed in accessing information in South Africa.

The South African Human Rights Commission has expressed its concern that South Africans’ right to access information has not being fully realised. In light of the SAHRC concern, she asked the candidate how the Information Regulator could make improvements on that while ensuring compliance with PAIA legislation.

Ms A Ramolobeng (ANC) said that if appointed, the candidate would be required to work with other members as well as be accountable to the Chairperson of the Regulator. She asked the candidate for a description on how she would describe her leadership style and how her past colleagues would describe her as a leader and a team player.

Ms Ramolobeng highlighted PAIA and asked the candidate to explain why access to information is so important.

In conclusion, the Chairperson asked the candidate what she thought of the interview process and if the interview process and the questions were fair.

The Chairperson informed the candidate on the way forward. The Committee would make its recommendations to the National Assembly who would then inform the President of these so he can make the appointments. As the term of the Information Regulator terminated on the 30 November, the candidate would be informed of the interview outcome before then.

Candidate 2: Mr Ezra Pillay
The Chairperson asked the candidate to introduce himself, who he was, and to explain, in terms of his experience and values, why he was suitable for the vacant position.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if he would be available to serve in a full-time or part-time capacity. He asked the candidate to explain how he would balance his responsibilities as a regulator and his other commitments.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if there was anything else, other than what he had already declared in his application, that he would like to bring to the committee’s attention. He emphasised the importance of disclosing such information as failure to disclose such information could bring the reputation of the Information Regulator into question.

Mr Dyantyi asked the candidate to explain to his understanding of the balance between protecting personal data and privacy on the one hand and promoting recourse for those who demand that they should have the access to certain information on the other.

Mr Dyantyi remarked that the process as provided by PAIA has often proved to be tedious for accessing information. He asked the candidate what practical steps he would initiate to enhance a community’s access to all these PAIA procedures if appointed.

Mr Horn commented on the right to privacy as contained in the POPIA. However, those rights were not the only rights that had been referred to in legislation. He made reference to the amaBhungane case in which the Constitutional Court found certain sections of RICA to be unconstitutional, particularly the sections on the permission given to the state to do communication surveillance. The ConCourt has given Parliament a three-year period to review RICA. He asked the candidate to give some inputs on which aspects of the legislation should be reviewed. The ultimate objective of the review is to ensure that citizens’ right to privacy is protected as well as enable the state to do surveillance for security purpose without infringing on a citizen’s right to privacy.

Mr Horn commented on the large-scale data breaches where personal information of South Africans was leaked such as in the case of Standard Bank and the Department of Justice. In all these cases, the Information Regulator has issued a statement to say it was not happy with the breach and that it would engage with the institution to discuss strengthening their system security. Mr Horn asked the candidate to comment if the action taken by the Information Regulator was sufficient or if its action was too reactive instead of proactive.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen remarked that the global COVID-19 pandemic has generated privacy and data protection compliance concerns. One of the concerns was that the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for increased data sharing. She asked the candidate to give some examples of the data protection concerns in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As South Africa just had its local government elections, it was inevitable that citizens’ personal information data was being handled by different role players in the election such as election management bodies, election monitors and political parties to process their information. As digital campaigning is here to stay, Ms Newhoudt-Druchen emphasised the importance of the lawful processing of citizens’ personal information. She asked the candidate to elaborate on this statement.

Ms Breytenbach said that as POPIA is now fully operational and the candidate would be joining the Regulator at a time when POPIA was at its implementation stage, she asked how the candidate could contribute to the success of this implementation phase.

Ms Breytenbach asked the candidate to identify the key challenges or risks which the Information Regulator faced as it went about establishing itself. Following that, she asked the candidate to provide the corresponding mitigation strategies to solve those challenges and risks.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate to explain his understanding of the balance between protecting citizens’ personal data and ensuring their internet freedom as well as to identify the challenges of accessing information in South Africa.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate how he planned to ensure that the Information Regulator can improve its compliance with PAIA legislation.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate to explain what the roles of the Information Regulator were and what specific matters the Information Regulator needed to consider in executing its powers and duties.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate to explain why being impartial and independent was so important for the Information Regulator.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate if he believed that the Information Regulator should be included in government’s discussions on the digital economy and the fourth industrial revolution. If the response was in the affirmative, the candidate needed to explain why.

Ms Ramolobeng said that if appointed, the candidate would be required to work with other members as well as be accountable to the Chairperson of the Regulator. She asked the candidate how he would describe his leadership style as well as how his past colleagues would describe him as a leader and a team player.

Ms Ramolobeng highlighted PAIA and asked the candidate to explain why access to information is so important.

The Chairperson asked the candidate what he thought of the interview process, if the interview process and the questions were fair.

The Chairperson informed the candidate on the way forward. The Committee would make its recommendations to the National Assembly who would then inform the President of these so he can make the appointments. As the term of the Information Regulator terminated on the 30 November, the candidate would be informed of the interview outcome before then.

Candidate 3: Dr Sebo Tladi
The Chairperson asked the candidate to introduce herself, who she was, and in terms of her experience and values, why she believed that she was suitable for the vacant position on the Information Regulator.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if she would be available to serve in a full-time or a part-time capacity and to explain how she would balance her responsibilities as a regulator and her other responsibilities as a lecturer.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if there was anything else, other than what she had already declared in her application, that she would like to bring to the committee’s attention. He emphasised the importance of disclosing such information as failure to do so would bring the reputation of the Information Regulator into question.

Ms Breytenbach said that as POPIA is now fully operational and the candidate would be joining the Regulator at a time when POPIA was at its implementation stage, she asked the candidate how she could contribute to the success in this implementation phase.

Ms Breytenbach asked the candidate to identify the key challenges or risks which the Information Regulator faced as it went about establishing itself. Following that, she asked the candidate to provide the corresponding mitigation strategies to solve those challenges and risks.

Mr Dyantyi asked the candidate to explain how the Information Regulator panel can have a proper balance between the need to protect personal data and privacy and the need to promote recourse for those who demand that they should have the access to information.

Mr Dyantyi remarked that since the process for accessing information as set out in PAIA has often proved to be tedious, he asked the candidate to provide some inputs on what steps she would initiate to enhance a community’s access to PAIA procedures if appointed.

Ms Ramolobeng said that if appointed, the candidate would be required to work with other members as well as be accountable to the Chairperson of the Regulator, she asked the candidate how she would describe her leadership style and how her past colleagues would describe her as a leader and a team player.

Ms Ramolobeng highlighted PAIA and asked the candidate to explain why access to information is so important.

Given the emerging trend of big data leaks in recent years which led to the personal information of South Africans being shared in the public domain, Ms Ramolobeng asked the candidate to explain how data protection laws can protect the rights of data information subjects.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate to explain what the role of the Information Regulator should be in maintaining the balance between protecting citizens’ personal data and ensuring their internet freedom.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate to provide a few examples of the challenges in accessing information in South Africa.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate how she planned to ensure that the Information Regulator can improve its compliance with PAIA legislation.

Mr Horn commented on the right to privacy as contained in the POPIA. However, those rights were not the only rights that had been referred to in legislation. He made reference to the amaBhungane case in which the Constitutional Court found certain sections of RICA to be unconstitutional, particularly the sections on the permission given to the state to do communication surveillance. The ConCourt has given Parliament a three-year period to review RICA. Given the candidate’s experience in electronic commerce research and her field of expertise, he asked for inputs on the deficiencies of the current legislation as well as what should be reviewed. The ultimate objective of the review is to ensure that citizens’ right to privacy is protected as well as enable the state to do surveillance for security purpose without infringing on a citizen’s right to privacy.

Mr Nqola noted that the candidate’s work experience in the South African Revenue Service (SARS). In line with PAIA, he asked the candidate under which exceptional circumstances SARS could disclose the personal tax records of taxpayers to the public.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate if she believed that the Information Regulator should be included in government’s discussions on the digital economy and the fourth industrial revolution. If the response was in the affirmative, the candidate needed to explain why.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen remarked that the global COVID-19 pandemic has generated privacy and data protection compliance concerns. One of the concerns was that the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for increased data sharing. She asked the candidate to give some examples of the data protection concerns in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As South Africa just had its local government elections, it was inevitable that citizens’ personal information data was being handled by different role players in the election such as election management bodies, election monitors and political parties to process their information. As digital campaigning is here to stay, Ms Newhoudt-Druchen emphasised the importance of the lawful processing of citizens’ personal information. She asked the candidate to elaborate on this statement.

The Chairperson asked the candidate what she thought of the interview process, if the interview process and the questions were fair.

The Chairperson informed the candidate on the way forward. The Committee would make its recommendations to the National Assembly who would then inform the President of these so he can make the appointments. As the term of the Information Regulator terminated on the 30 November, the candidate would be informed of the interview outcome before then.

Candidate 4: Prof Kobus Van Rooyen
The Chairperson asked the candidate to introduce himself, who he was, and in terms of his experience and values, why he believed that he was suitable for the vacant position on the Information Regulator.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if he would be available to serve on a full-time or a part-time basis and to explain how he would balance his responsibilities on the board and his other responsibilities.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if there was anything else, other than what he had already declared in his application, that he would like to bring to the committee’s attention. He emphasised the importance of disclosing such information as failure to do so would bring the reputation of the Information Regulator into question.

Mr Nqola noted the candidate’s work experience as an ICASA councillor. He asked the candidate how to keep the balance between PAIA and POPIA. He asked this due to the ruling by the Pretoria High Court yesterday which instructed SARS to hand over the tax records of an individual whom he would not name to the media. Some would say that such a judgement conflicted with POPIA.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate to explain why being impartial and independent was so important for the Information Regulator.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate if he believed that the Information Regulator should be included in government’s discussions on the digital economy and the fourth industrial revolution. If the response was in the affirmative, the candidate needed to explain why.

Given the emerging trend of big data leaks in recent years which led to the personal information of South Africans being shared in the public domain, Ms Ramolobeng asked the candidate to explain how data protection laws can protect the rights of data information subjects.

Ms Ramolobeng said that if appointed, the candidate would require both leadership skills and the skill to work with other members. She asked the candidate how he would describe his leadership style and how his past colleagues would describe him as a leader and a team player.

Ms Breytenbach reminded the candidate that she was a great admirer of brevity. Since POPIA is now fully operational and the candidate would be joining the regulator at its implementation stage, how he could contribute to the success of its implementation stage.

Ms Breytenbach asked the candidate to identify the key challenges or risks which the Information Regulator faced as it went about establishing itself. Following that, she asked the candidate to provide the corresponding mitigation strategies to solve those challenges and risks.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen remarked that the global COVID-19 pandemic has generated privacy and data protection compliance concerns. One of the concerns was that the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for increased data sharing. She asked the candidate to give some examples of the data protection concerns in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As South Africa just had its local government elections, it was inevitable that citizens’ personal information data was being handled by different role players in the election such as election management bodies, election monitors and political parties to process their information. As digital campaigning is here to stay, Ms Newhoudt-Druchen emphasised the importance of the lawful processing of citizens’ personal information. She asked the candidate to elaborate on this statement.

Ms Maseko-Jele remarked that the SAHRC has concerns that the right to information for South Africans has not been realised. She asked the candidate how he planned to ensure that the Information Regulator can improve its compliance with PAIA legislation.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate to explain the role of the Information Regulator in maintaining the balance between protecting citizens’ personal data and ensuring their internet freedom.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate what he believed the challenges were in accessing information in South Africa.

Mr Horn commented on the right to privacy as contained in the POPIA. However, those rights were not the only rights that had been referred to in legislation. He made reference to the amaBhungane case in which the Constitutional Court found certain sections of RICA to be unconstitutional, particularly the sections on the permission given to the state to do communication surveillance. The ConCourt has given Parliament a three-year period to review RICA. He asked the candidate to give some inputs on which aspects of the legislation should be reviewed. The ultimate objective of the review is to ensure that citizens’ right to privacy is protected as well as enable the state to do surveillance for security purpose without infringing on a citizen’s right to privacy.

Mr Horn asked the candidate to comment the Information Regulator Chairperson's remark that the Information Regulator had been established in 2016 and educating the public had taken place and it was time for it to execute its enforcement power since POPIA came into effect in July this year. He asked what the candidate thought of that statement given his advocacy and the talking and listening approach he had highlighted in his introduction.

Mr Dyantyi remarked that since the process for accessing information as set out in PAIA has often proved to be tedious, he asked the candidate to explain what steps he would initiate to enhance a community’s access to PAIA procedures because communities often lacking such information.

The Chairperson asked the candidate what he thought of the interview process, if the interview process and the questions were fair.

The Chairperson informed the candidate on the way forward. The Committee would make its recommendations to the National Assembly who would then inform the President of these so he can make the appointments. As the term of the Information Regulator terminated on the 30 November, the candidate would be informed of the interview outcome before then.

Candidate 5: Adv Stroom-Nzama
The Chairperson asked the candidate to introduce herself, who she was, and in terms of her experience and values, why she believed that she was a suitable candidate for the vacant position on the Information Regulator.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if she would be available to serve on a full-time or a part-time member and to explain how she would balance her responsibilities on the board and her other commitments.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if there was anything else, other than what she had already declared in her application, that she would like to bring to the committee’s attention. He emphasised the importance of disclosing such information as failure to do so would bring the reputation of the Information Regulator into question.

Ms Breytenbach reminded the candidate that she was a great admirer of brevity. She said that since now POPIA is fully operational and the candidate would be joining the regulator at its implementation stage, she asked how she could contribute to the success of its implementation.

As the candidate used Ms Breytenbach’s allocated time limit, the second question could not be asked.

Ms Maseko-Jele remarked that the SAHRC has concerns that the right to information for South Africans has not been realised. She asked the candidate how he planned to ensure that the Information Regulator can improve its compliance with PAIA legislation.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate to explain the role of the Information Regulator in maintaining the balance between protecting citizens’ personal data and ensuring their internet freedom.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate what the current challenges were in accessing information in South Africa.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen remarked that the global COVID-19 pandemic has generated privacy and data protection compliance concerns. One of the concerns was that the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for increased data sharing. She asked the candidate to give some examples of the data protection concerns in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As South Africa just had its local government elections, it was inevitable that citizens’ personal information data was being handled by different role players in the election such as election management bodies, election monitors and political parties to process their information. As digital campaigning is here to stay, Ms Newhoudt-Druchen emphasised the importance of the lawful processing of citizens’ personal information. She asked the candidate to elaborate on this statement.

Mr Horn commented on the right to privacy as contained in the POPIA. However, those rights were not the only rights that had been referred to in legislation. He made reference to the amaBhungane case in which the Constitutional Court found certain sections of RICA to be unconstitutional, particularly the sections on the permission given to the state to do communication surveillance. The ConCourt has given Parliament a three-year period to review RICA. He asked the candidate which aspects of the legislation should be reviewed. The ultimate objective of the review is to ensure that citizens’ right to privacy is protected as well as enable the state to do surveillance for security purpose without infringing on a citizen’s right to privacy. He asked if the candidate could comment on how to address such deficiencies.

Mr Horn commented on the candidate’s current work on the Information Regulator and asked her to reflect on the first term of the Regulator as well as its struggle with National Treasury when it was first established. He wanted the candidate to comment on what could have been done differently by outgoing members of the Regulator.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate to explain what the roles of the Information Regulator were in terms of the Act. He asked the candidate what specific matters the Information Regulator needed to consider when executing its functions and duties.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate to explain why being impartial and independent was so important for the Information Regulator.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate if she believed that the Information Regulator should be included in government’s discussions on the digital economy and the fourth industrial revolution. If the response was in the affirmative, the candidate needed to explain why.

Mr Dyantyi remarked that the process for accessing information as set out in PAIA has often been described as tedious. He asked the candidate to comment on that description.

Mr Dyantyi asked the candidate how to make it easier for a community to access information using PAIA procedures. What steps would the candidate initiate to enhance access to PAIA procedures because communities often lack such information, especially in his constituency in Delft.

Mr Dyantyi asked the candidate to explain how the Information Regulator can achieve a balance between the need to protect personal data and privacy and the need to promote recourse for those who demand that they should have the access to certain information.

Ms Ramolobeng said that being a member of the Information Regulator required both leadership skills and the skill to work with other members. She asked the candidate how she would describe her leadership style and how past colleagues would describe her as a leader and a team player.

Given the emerging trend of big data leaks in recent years which led to the personal information of South Africans being shared in the public domain, Ms Ramolobeng asked the candidate to explain how data protection laws can protect the rights of data information subjects.

Ms Ramolobeng highlighted PAIA and asked the candidate to explain why access to information was so important.

The Chairperson asked the candidate what she thought of the interview process, if the interview process and the questions were fair.

The Chairperson informed the candidate on the way forward. The Committee would make its recommendations to the National Assembly who would then inform the President of these so he can make the appointments. As the term of the Information Regulator terminated on the 30 November, the candidate would be informed of the interview outcome before then.

Afternoon session

Candidate 6: Adv Tlakula
The Chairperson asked the candidate to introduce herself, who she was, and in terms of her experience and values, why she believed that she was suitable for the vacant position on the Information Regulator.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if she would be willing to serve on a full-time or a part-time basis and to explain how she would balance her responsibilities on the board and her other commitments.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if there was anything else, other than what she had already declared in her application, that she would like to bring to the committee’s attention. He emphasised the importance of disclosing such information as failure to do so would bring the reputation of the Information Regulator into question.

Ms Breytenbach reminded the candidate that she was a great admirer of brevity. She said that since now POPIA is fully operational, she asked the candidate how she could contribute to its success in its implementation stage.

Ms Breytenbach asked the candidate to give two key challenges or risks which the Information Regulator faced as it went about establishing itself and to tell the committee her suggested mitigation strategies to solve them.

Mr Horn commented on the right to privacy as contained in the POPIA. However, those rights were not the only rights that had been referred to in legislation. He made reference to the amaBhungane case in which the Constitutional Court found certain sections of RICA to be unconstitutional, particularly the sections on the permission given to the state to do communication surveillance. The ConCourt has given Parliament a three-year period to review RICA. He asked the candidate which aspects of the legislation should be reviewed. The ultimate objective of the review is to ensure that citizens’ right to privacy is protected as well as enable the state to do surveillance for security purpose without infringing on a citizen’s right to privacy. He asked if the candidate could comment on how to address such deficiencies.

Mr Horn commented on the candidate’s current work on the Information Regulator and asked her to reflect on the first term of the Regulator as well as its struggle with National Treasury when it was first established. He asked the candidate to comment on what could have been done differently by outgoing members of the Regulator.

Ms Ramolobeng said that being a member of the Information Regulator required both leadership skill and the skill to work with other members. She asked the candidate to provide how she would describe her leadership style and how her team would describe her as a leader and a team player.

Given the emerging trend of big data leaks in recent years which led to the personal information of South Africans being shared in the public domain, Ms Ramolobeng asked the candidate to explain how data protection laws can protect the rights of data information subjects.

Ms Ramolobeng was informed by the Chairperson that her time was up.

Ms Maseko-Jele remarked that the SAHRC has concerns that the right to information for South Africans has not been realised. She asked the candidate how he planned to ensure that the Information Regulator can improve its compliance with PAIA legislation.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate to explain the role of the Information Regulator in maintaining the balance between protecting citizens’ personal data and ensuring their internet freedom.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked what the candidate thought the challenges were in accessing information in South Africa. However, the Chairperson noted her time was up so there could be no response.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate to explain why POPIA required the Regulator to be both impartial and independent.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate if she believed that the Information Regulator should be included in government’s discussions on the digital economy and the fourth industrial revolution. If the response was in the affirmative, the candidate needed to explain why.

Mr Nqola was aware that the candidate was part of the outgoing team of the Regulator. Given the ruling by the Pretoria High Court yesterday instructing SARS to make public the tax records of an individual whom he would not name. He asked the candidate’s opinion as some are saying that the judgement was in conflict with the POPIA. He asked the candidate to explain where the balance should be in law.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen remarked that the global COVID-19 pandemic has generated privacy and data protection compliance concerns. One of the concerns was that the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for increased data sharing. She asked the candidate to give some examples of the data protection concerns in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As South Africa just had its local government elections, it was inevitable that citizens’ personal information data was being handled by different role players in the election such as election management bodies, election monitors and political parties to process their information. As digital campaigning is here to stay, Ms Newhoudt-Druchen emphasised the importance of the lawful processing of citizens’ personal information. She asked the candidate to elaborate on this statement.

Mr Dyantyi asked the candidate if she believed that the process for accessing information as set out in PAIA was a cumbersome one.

Given the candidate’s work experience at the Regulator and the South African Human Rights Commission, he asked the candidate to explain if appointed what practical steps she would initiate to enhance a community’s access to PAIA procedures as it is often lacking such information.

Mr Dyantyi asked the candidate to explain how the Information Regulator panel should interpret the proper balance the need to protect personal data and privacy and the need to promote recourse for those who demand that they should have the access to information.

The Chairperson asked the candidate what she thought of the interview process, if the interview process and the questions were fair.

The Chairperson informed the candidate on the way forward. The Committee would make its recommendations to the National Assembly who would then inform the President of these so he can make the appointments. As the term of the Information Regulator terminated on the 30 November, the candidate would be informed of the interview outcome before then.

Candidate 7: Mr Mfana Gwala
The Chairperson asked the candidate to introduce himself, who he was, and in terms of his experience and values, why he believed that he was suitable for the vacant position on the Information Regulator.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if he would be willing to serve in a full-time or a part-time capacity and to explain how he would balance his responsibilities on the board and his other commitments.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if there was anything else, other than what he had already declared in his application, that he would like to bring to the committee’s attention. He emphasised the importance of disclosing such information as failure to do so would bring the reputation of the Information Regulator and of his own into question.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if his position at his law firm would be in conflict of interest of serving on the Information Regulator.

Ms Breytenbach reminded the candidate that she was a great admirer of brevity. She said that since now POPIA is fully operational and the candidate would be joining the regulator at its stage of implementation, she asked the candidate how he could contribute to its success in its implementation stage.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen remarked that the global COVID-19 pandemic has generated privacy and data protection compliance concerns. One of the concerns was that the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for increased data sharing. She asked the candidate to give some examples of the data protection concerns in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As South Africa just had its local government elections, it was inevitable that citizens’ personal information data was being handled by different role players in the election such as election management bodies, election monitors and political parties to process their information. As digital campaigning is here to stay, Ms Newhoudt-Druchen emphasised the importance of the lawful processing of citizens’ personal information. She asked the candidate to elaborate on this statement.

Ms Ramolobeng asked the candidate if he believed that having data protection regulations would create more economic opportunities for South Africans.

Ms Ramolobeng highlighted PAIA prior to the establishment of the Information Regulator and asked the candidate to explain why access to information was so important.

Given the emerging trend of big data leaks in recent years which led to the personal information of South Africans being shared in the public domain, Ms Ramolobeng asked the candidate to explain how data protection laws can protect the rights of data information subjects.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate to explain his view on the role of the Information Regulator in maintaining the balance between protecting citizens’ personal data and ensuring their internet freedom. She noted that the candidate had made comments about social media platforms earlier.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate what the current challenges in accessing information were in South Africa.

Ms Maseko-Jele remarked that the SAHRC has concerns that the right to information for South Africans has not been realised. She asked the candidate how he planned to ensure that the Information Regulator can improve its compliance with PAIA legislation. Before the candidate could respond, the Chairperson said that Ms Maseko-Jele’s allocated time had expired.

Mr Horn commented on the right to privacy as contained in the POPIA. However, those rights were not the only rights that had been referred to in legislation. He made reference to the amaBhungane case in which the Constitutional Court found certain sections of RICA to be unconstitutional, particularly the sections on the permission given to the state to do communication surveillance. The ConCourt has given Parliament a three-year period to review RICA. He asked the candidate to give some inputs on which aspects of the legislation should be reviewed and if any additional authorities should be given information regulatory in this regard. The ultimate objective of the review is to ensure that citizens’ right to privacy is protected as well as enable the state to do surveillance for security purpose without infringing on a citizen’s right to privacy. He asked if the candidate could give any inputs to Parliament on how to address such deficiencies.

Mr Horn noted that the candidate’s resume spoke at length about the enforcement role of the Regulator and the importance of managing data properly. He thus asked the candidate to provide examples of how in his own firm that he was taking measures in preparation for the implementation of POPIA.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate to explain what the roles of the Information Regulator were to the candidate’s understanding and in terms of the Act. He further asked the candidate what specific matters the Information Regulator needed to consider when executing its functions and duties.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate to explain why POPIA required the regulator to be impartial and independent.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate if he believed that the Information Regulator should be included in government’s discussions on the digital economy and the fourth industrial revolution. If the response was in the affirmative, the candidate needed to explain why.

Mr Dyantyi asked the candidate to explain if appointed what practical steps he would initiate as the Information Regulator to enhance a community’s access to PAIA procedures because there is a lack of such information and the current PAIA procedures are often thought to be cumbersome.

The Chairperson asked the candidate what he thought of the interview process, if the interview process and the questions were fair.

The Chairperson informed the candidate on the way forward. The Committee would make its recommendations to the National Assembly who would then inform the President of these so he can make the appointments. As the term of the Information Regulator terminated on the 30 November, the candidate would be informed of the interview outcome before then.

Candidate 8: Adv Johannes Weapond
The Chairperson asked the candidate to introduce himself, who he was, and in terms of his experience and values, why he believed that he should be re-appointed on the Information Regulator for the second time.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if he would be available to serve in a full-time or a part-time capacity.

The Chairperson asked the candidate if there was anything else, other than what he had already declared in his application, that he would like to bring to the committee’s attention. He emphasised the importance of disclosing such information as failure to do so could bring the reputation of the Information Regulator into question.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate to explain if there is a conflict between PAIA and POPIA and how to strike a balance between those two Acts. He asked this question due to the ruling by the Pretoria High Court yesterday instructing SARS to make public the tax records of an individual whom he would not name. Some say that such a judgement is in conflict with POPIA.

Mr Nqola asked the candidate if he believed that the Information Regulator should be included in government’s discussions on the digital economy and the fourth industrial revolution. If the response was in the affirmative, the candidate needed to explain why.

Mr Horn commented on the right to privacy as contained in the POPIA. However, those rights were not the only rights that had been referred to in legislation. He made reference to the amaBhungane case in which the Constitutional Court found certain sections of RICA to be unconstitutional, particularly the sections on the permission given to the state to do communication surveillance. The ConCourt has given Parliament a three-year period to review RICA. He asked the candidate which aspects of the legislation should be reviewed.

Mr Horn noted that Adv Weapond was the Chair of the Regulator’s risk committee. As the Regulator’s own website is housed on the Justice Department’s website, what measures did the candidate take upon discovering the security breach. What needed to be done to prevent such breach happening in future?

Ms Breytenbach asked the candidate if he had identified the breach as a risk when the Department’s website was hacked. She asked if the candidate had been provided with the tools to conduct the investigation.

Following the candidate’s response, Ms Breytenbach asked the candidate if the Regulator had been provided such a report and how much and what personal information was compromised in this breach.

Ms Maseko-Jele remarked that the SAHRC has concerns that the right to information for South Africans has not been realised. She asked the candidate how he planned to ensure that the Information Regulator can improve its compliance with PAIA legislation.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked the candidate to explain the role of the Information Regulator in maintaining the balance between protecting citizens’ personal data and ensuring their internet freedom.

Ms Maseko-Jele asked what the challenges were in accessing information in South Africa.

Given the emerging trend of big data leaks in recent years which led to the personal information of South Africans being shared in the public domain, Ms Ramolobeng asked the candidate to explain how data protection laws can protect the rights of data information subjects.

Ms Ramolobeng asked the candidate if he believed that having data protection regulations would create more economic opportunities for South Africans.

Ms Ramolobeng highlighted PAIA and asked the candidate to explain why access to information was so important.

Mr Dyantyi asked the candidate if he agreed with the statement that the process for accessing information as set out in PAIA was a tedious and inconvenient one. Given the candidate’s work experience at the Regulator, he asked the candidate to share what he had come across in that regard.

Mr Dyatyi wanted the candidate to explain if re-appointed what practical steps he would initiate to enhance a community’s access to PAIA procedures because communities are often lacking such information.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen remarked that the global COVID-19 pandemic has generated privacy and data protection compliance concerns. What has the Information Regulator learnt during this time? One of the concerns was the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for increased data sharing. She asked the candidate to give some data protection concerns identified in respect of the pandemic.

As South Africa just had its local government elections, it was inevitable that citizens’ personal information data was being handled by different role players in the election such as election management bodies, election monitors and political parties to process their information. As digital campaigning is here to stay, Ms Newhoudt-Druchen emphasised the importance of the lawful processing of citizens’ personal information. She asked the candidate to elaborate on this statement.

The Chairperson asked the candidate what he thought of the interview process, if the interview process and the questions were fair.

The Chairperson informed the candidate on the way forward. The Committee would make its recommendations to the National Assembly who would then inform the President of these so he can make the appointments. As the term of the Information Regulator terminated on the 30 November, the candidate would be informed of the interview outcome before then.

Break
After a short break, the committee reconvened to deliberate on the interview process.

Deliberations
The Chairperson invited them to make comments on the interview candidates.

Mr Dyantyi said that it became clear to him that those interviews had presented a picture of continuity and change. It was evidently clear that interview candidates who were current serving on the Regulator were knowledgeable about the topics when answering Members’ questions.

As a result, he recommended Adv Tlakula to remain the Chairperson of the Information Regulator in the new term given that even one of the candidates, Prof Van Rooyen, recommended her. He recommended Adv Stroom-Nzama to be appointed as a full-time member as her responses were accurate and articulate which demonstrated her wealth of knowledge on those matters.

Mr Dyantyi said that Adv Weapond had answered his questions well and must be given another chance. In addition, he was quite impressed with the solidness and authoritative nature of Mr Gwala and Prof Van Rooyen. He believed that Mr Pillay would follow after those two candidates. Mr Dyantyi was not impressed by Ms Baniparsadh’s interview and was turned off by her imposing on the committee by invoking the youth quota.

Nevertheless, given Adv Tlakula’s age, Mr Dyantyi said that she might not come back to serve after the next term and Prof Van Rooyen’s age was a slight disadvantage. He emphasised the importance to infuse the Regulator with young people.

Ms Breytenbach agreed with the importance of continuity and change. Thus, she supported the return of Adv Tlakula as Chairperson. Adv Stroom-Nzama did well in her view so she believed that the committee should support her re-appointment. Mr Pillay did exceptionally well in the interview and emphasised Mr Pillay’s youth, his field of expertise and the work that he had done. Hence, she would support the appointment of Mr Pillay. In addition, she would support the appointment of Mr Gwala. She emphasised the importance of injecting young, competent people into the Regulator. In that regard, she said that the committee must decide if they would recommend Adv Weapond for continuity’s sake or Mr Pillay for change.

The Chairperson reminded Members to indicate which candidate they would support to serve on a full-time basis and which part-time. Some candidates had indicated that they could specifically serve full-time or part-time.

Ms Maseko-Jele endorsed her colleagues’ views and the names they had endorsed.

The Committee Secretariat informed the committee that this meeting needed to make a decision on selecting four candidates of whom three needed to be full-time and one part-time.

Ms Maseko-Jele said that she would support the appointment of Adv Tlakula as Chairperson, together with Adv Stroom-Nzama and Adv Weapond as full-time members of the Regulator. In addition, she believed that Mr Gwala must be taken as a part-time member because he had indicated in the interview that he wanted to serve on a part-time basis. She believed that Mr Pillay was very good but she would listen to other members’ views on the third full-time position.

Mr Horn commented that there seemed to be a broad agreement among Members which echoed his own view that Adv Tlakula and Adv Stroom-Zama must be retained. For the third full-time candidate, if the committee decided to uphold continuity it should support Adv Weapond, or support Mr Pillay for change. Mr Pillay had impressed him by showing more than a theoretical knowledge about compliance with legislation as he has had a successful career as a compliance officer. He believed that that quality could add value to the Information Regulator. His view was that Mr Pillay must be supported as he is available to serve either on a full-time or part-time basis.

Mr Nqola agreed with other members on their views. He supported the appointment of Advocates Tlakula, Stroom-Nzama and Weapond to remain full-time members of the Regulator.

The Chairperson said that in terms of interview performance, he believed Mr Gwala should come first followed by Mr Pillay. For the purpose of change, he recommended Mr Gwala to be the fourth part-time member.

Ms Ramolobeng recommended Adv Tlakula as the Chairperson, Adv Stroom-Nzama and Adv Weapond remain as full-time. However, she remained cautious about the Vodacom issue which had been raised as the vetting process was underway and it remained uncertain on how the matter would be resolved. She was however impressed with how he knowledgeable Adv Weapond in quoting sections of legislation. She supported Mr Gwala as part-time member of the Regulator as he was very assertive, straight to the point and demonstrated good understanding of the legislation.

The Chairperson remarked that Mr Gwala was himself a victim of cell phone cloning.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen supported continuity and thus the three incumbents should remain. She expressed her hope that a succession plan would be created during this term. She was impressed by Mr Gwala’s maturity and thus recommended his appointment as a part-time member.

The Chairperson summarised Members’ inputs. There was consensus that Adv Tlakula should remain the Chairperson of the Information Regulator with Adv Stroom-Nzama remaining a full-time commissioner. The majority view was that Adv Weapond should remain as a full-time commissioner and Mr Gwala should be a part-time commissioner. Mr Pillay rated just below Mr Gwala in terms of interview performance.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their committed and diligent work. The Members are indeed examples of public representatives of which the public would be proud.

The Chair reminded members of the 8:00 am meeting on 18 November to adopt the Committee Report on the Information Regulator recommendations which would be debated in the National Assembly on 23 November. He informed the committee that he had received Department response on the Cannabis Bill and the question session would be scheduled for the following week.

The meeting was adjourned.