South Africa's Information Regulator has ruled against the Johannesburg Stock Exchange's refusal to release trading records, deeming it a public body under the Promotion of Access to Information Act. The decision stems from a 2023 complaint by Inhlanhla Ventures seeking details of potentially manipulative trades in enX Group shares from May 2020. The regulator mandates notification to involved parties before disclosure.
On January 5, 2026, Information Regulator Advocate Pansy Tlakula issued an enforcement notice upholding a complaint by Inhlanhla Ventures against the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). The notice overturned the JSE's denial of a 2023 Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) request for records of share trades in enX Group Ltd between May 3 and 19, 2020. Inhlanhla Ventures, impacted by these trades, suspected market manipulation but needed the JSE's Broker Deal Accounting system data to verify involvement.
The regulator emphasized that disclosure is the default under Paia, with refusals narrowly interpreted and justified by the refusing body. She found the JSE failed this burden, offering only 'mere assertion' and 'pure speculation' of harm. Classifying the JSE as a public body for its regulatory functions under the Financial Markets Act, the decision noted the exchange's own processes align with public body provisions.
Regarding personal information in the records—such as names, addresses, and ID numbers—the regulator ruled disclosure reasonable, as privacy protections do not cover business affairs. 'Society would not recognise an expectation of privacy by participants in the relevant enX Group trades to be reasonable,' the notice stated. Contractual confidentiality clauses cannot override Paia, which trumps prohibitions in the Financial Markets Act.
To uphold fairness, the JSE must notify affected third parties, allowing representations before releasing the information to Inhlanhla. The JSE plans to review the decision and seek court intervention, citing the sensitivity of the regulatory data.
This ruling reinforces transparency in market regulation, balancing privacy with accountability amid allegations of manipulation.
