Pretoria – The Department of Basic Education has asked the high court to nullify the enforcement notice issued by the Information Regulator, which prevents the publication of matric results in newspapers.

Last month, the Information Regulator delivered an enforcement notice to the Department of Basic Education, ordering them to cease the annual publication of matric examination results in local media.

The enforcement notice was issued to halt the release of the 2024 matric results in newspapers, citing non-compliance with South Africa’s data protection laws, particularly the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA).

However, the department maintains that publishing the results in newspapers does not infringe upon POPIA.

On Friday, (13 December 2024), the department filed legal documents with the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria.

“The appeal suggests that the enforcement notice is suspended, enabling the department to proceed with releasing results to media outlets, which will publish them in accordance with the established practice of using only examination numbers,” the department mentioned in a statement released on Sunday, (15 December 2024).

In its submissions, the department claims that the publication of matric examination results in their current format (featuring only the examination number and results) in local newspapers does not reveal information that can identify any specific learner.

“The assertion by the Information Regulator that the Department of Basic Education has not demonstrated compliance with any of the conditions specified in section 11(1) of the POPI Act is insufficient,” the department noted.

“It is up to the Information Regulator to provide evidence of non-compliance with the relevant provisions of the POPI Act concerning any past or ongoing violations of personal data protection prior to issuing an enforcement notice.

“Therefore, the action taken to issue the enforcement notice to the Department is inconsistent with legal standards and/or represents a misuse of discretion by the Information Regulator that should have been applied more judiciously.”