Former President Jacob Zuma has entered the legal battle to keep his tax records off-limits to public scrutiny. Zuma is arguing that an order compelling their disclosure violates his constitutional rights to privacy while insisting the case should not be used to determine whether he committed any tax offences.

TimesLIVE reports that the intervention marks a significant escalation in the long-running fight over access to Zuma’s tax affairs after the former President applied to join the SARS as a co-applicant in its bid to overturn an enforcement notice issued by the Information Regulator (IR).

If successful, Zuma would stand alongside SARS in opposing the regulator’s decision directing the tax authority to disclose records linked to his tax affairs.

The dispute centres on attempts by UK-based financial journalist Warren Thompson to obtain Zuma’s tax records for the period between 2010 and 2018 after allegations that he may have failed to properly declare taxable income, fringe benefits and other financial advantages.

The requested records extend beyond tax returns to include VAT documents, audit findings, correspondence between SARS and Zuma or his attorneys, and records linked to alleged tax evasion investigations.

They also include documents relating to Royal Security, identified in the court papers as Zuma’s employer or client during portions of the relevant period.

Zuma argues that before the IR’s decision, SARS had consistently refused access to his taxpayer information. 

However, the enforcement notice directed the revenue service to disclose significant portions of his confidential records, which could have consequences for himself and others. 

TimesLIVE notes that SARS claims that references to criminal investigations involving Zuma and Royal Security appear in portions of the regulator’s findings but are omitted from the operative provisions of the enforcement notice, creating uncertainty over what records the revenue service is legally required to disclose.

Following the Constitutional Court’s landmark Arena Holdings judgment, which held that taxpayer confidentiality is not absolute and may be overridden in limited public-interest circumstances, Thompson renewed his request, arguing that disclosure would reveal evidence of substantial contraventions of the law.

SARS rejected the request, maintaining that the records constituted protected taxpayer information and did not reveal evidence of substantial contraventions of the law as contemplated in section 46 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act. 

The IR later upheld Thompson’s complaint and ordered the disclosure of several categories of records, prompting SARS to launch review proceedings.

Full TimesLIVE report