No ‘super injunction’ against investigative organisation Open Secrets — Chief Justice

The Office of the Chief Justice on Thursday denied that a so-called super injunction was granted against Open Secrets, an organisation investigating private sector economic crimes.

Under UK law, a super injunction is a court order where reporting on the fact that a court order exists is also barred. 

A statement issued by the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) said it was made aware of public allegations by Open Secrets that it had been “gagged” by an unknown judge, in an unknown court, in a court order obtained ex parte (without the presence of Open Secrets).

“Having learned about these disturbing allegations, the OCJ gathered the following facts: On 5 November 2025, an urgent application was brought before the Western Cape Division of the High Court by Integrated Convoy Protection (PTY) LTD (the Applicant) against Open Secrets (RF) NPC and one other (Open Secrets). It [was] served before a judge who was on urgent duty, Acting Judge [Gavin] Cooper.”

Integrated Convoy Protection is an armoured vehicle company.

“A hearing took place in an open court where several people attended. Open Secrets was represented by Tina Power, an attorney from Power Law. Parties presented [their] arguments in open court. Given the short time periods, Open Secrets had not yet filed any papers.

“It was clear that the matter had to be postponed but the parties proposed different dates. No agreement could be reached on the order. The judge heard further argument from the parties and ultimately granted an order postponing the hearing of the matter to 18 November 2025, provided that the date was confirmed with the Acting Deputy Judge President as the special allocation of a judge was required. 

“This was recorded in the order, and stated in court. In the interim, the Court established a clear timetable for the filing of papers and granted brief, temporary relief.”

The OCJ further explained that the order made provision for further argument on the issue of whether the matter was urgent. It established mechanisms for the service of court documents, including that it could be done via WhatsApp.

This hearing date has now been changed to 28 November.

Ban on application information

The court then issued a temporary interdict ordering the following:

Open Secrets is not allowed to publish its article. Pending the hearing of the application for an interdict, Open Secrets is interdicted from publishing the contents of and facts relating to this application and this order, and is directed to keep the contents of this application confidential to the parties.

It is this part of the order, Open Secrets’ Hennie van Vuuren said on Thursday, that bars it from providing any information on the case. 

“Open Secrets notes the media statement issued by the Office of the Chief Justice earlier today. As a result of paragraph 6 of the urgent court order, which the Office of the Chief Justice has now published, Open Secrets maintains that as the respondent, it is unable to provide further information on this matter at this stage. At no point did we advise that this matter was heard either ex-parte (without us being present) or in camera (in a closed court),” Van Vuuren said.

“We will provide further information when we are able to.

“Open Secrets will continue the struggle for truth and justice,” Van Vuuren said.

Below is a copy of the order, as published by the Office of the Chief Justice. 

The order continued that parties were not to use the electronic case system in operation at the Western Cape Division of the High Court – called Court Online or Case Lines.

The rest of the order then establishes timelines for the filing of court papers.

In its statement, the OCJ continued that the Acting Deputy Judge President, Judge Nathan Erasmus, held a further case management meeting with the parties on Thursday morning, where directives on the further conduct of the matter were given.

The statement continued that the interim order, as granted, was a “standard and proportionate measure to preserve the status quo until all arguments can be properly heard and considered”.

“The order expresses no view on the merits of the application. The order is temporary and procedural, designed to allow for a fair and orderly judicial process. The Court set a truncated timetable for the swift exchange of papers, ensuring that both parties will have an opportunity to fully present their case and the matter will be adjudicated in a timely manner,” the OCJ statement said. 

“Characterising the legal process followed by the Court as a “gag order” is an unfortunate misrepresentation and undermines the role of the courts in adjudicating disputes,” the OCJ statement concluded. DM