Sunlight, Recordings, and the Right to Know

Why CSOS Must Disclose Adjudication Audio

“Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
— Justice Louis Brandeis

In community scheme governance, where conflicts are increasingly resolved through the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS), transparency is not a luxury. It is a legal necessity.

So what happens if a party to an adjudication requests access to the audio recording of the hearing from CSOS? Should the request be honoured - or denied? Can it lawfully be denied?

The answer to that question cuts to the heart of what it means to do justice in a constitutional democracy.

The Record is the Process

CSOS operates as a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, with the power to issue binding rulings against parties that use it. These decisions often have real consequences - financial, legal, reputational - for owners, trustees, managing agents, developers and other stakeholders.

The audio recording of a hearing is not a casual by-product of this process. It is the primary record of what actually happened in there.

To deny a party access to that record is to deny them the ability to verify, challenge, or understand the reasoning that shaped the outcome.

When this happens, justice is not just delayed. It is concealed. And there would need to be seriously compelling reasons why such audio is not provided. Payment of a reasonable fee should enable any audio recording of any adjudication proceeding to be obtained by any member of the public.

The Law Is on Your Side

Under s 32 of the Constitution, everyone has the right of access to information held by the State or any public body if that information is required to exercise or protect a right. The Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) was enacted to give teeth to this right.