PRESS STATEMENT FROM BIOWATCH SOUTH AFRICA*

*Friday 18 March 2005***

* ***

*BIOWATCH SOUTH AFRICA APPLIES FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL HIGH COURT COST AWARD TO MONSANTO***

Biowatch South Africa has applied for leave to appeal against the Pretoria High Court order that the organisation pay the legal costs of Monsanto South Africa (Pty) Ltd. The organisation is also applying for leave to appeal the absence of any costs order in its favour.

The costs order in favour of Monsanto SA (Pty) Ltd arose out of the major victory which Biowatch South Africa achieved to gain access to information about genetically modified (GM) crops in South Africa. The Registrar of Genetic Resources was ordered to release this information by 30 April this year – a development which will at last lift the veil of secrecy which has shrouded this industry and enable the public to know how decisions are made about the growing of GM crops in South Africa.

In his order handed down on 24 February this year, acting Judge Eric Dunn upheld the right of access to information, enshrined in the Constitution. He reaffirmed that Biowatch had a Constitutional right to the information, that access to this information was in the public interest and that Biowatch was forced to go to court to exercise this right.

He also said that granting access to information was a necessary part of the proper administration of the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Act and that access to information could only be restricted on the grounds set out in the Promotion of Access to Information Act.

However, instead of applying the general principle in litigation that costs should follow the result (successful litigants normally have their costs paid), acting Judge Dunn ordered Biowatch South Africa to pay the costs of Monsanto South Africa (Pty) Ltd. His reason was that Biowatch South Africa had been too general in its request for some of the information and that this had forced Monsanto to come to court to protect its interests.

Acting Judge Dunn made no other orders about costs. This is extremely disappointing because Biowatch South Africa was substantially successful in its application and he found the Registrar of Genetic Resources had adopted a passive role.

The court application was brought against the Department of Agriculture’s Registrar of Genetic Resources and Executive Council For Genetically Modified Organisms, after several other unsuccessful attempts to obtain the information.

Biowatch South Africa has decided to seek leave to appeal for the following main reasons:

* The cost order in favour of Monsanto (Pty) Ltd was likely to have
a deterrent effect on future public interest litigation. The order
creates the impression that if any part of a request for
information is found to be insufficiently specific, even a
successful litigant may be heavily penalised.
* The costs order against Biowatch South Africa will impede the
organisation’s capacity to gain access to, analyse and disseminate
to the public the very information for which the court ordered
access because much needed resources would be diverted away from
the organisation’s core business. Biowatch South Africa is a
non-governmental organisation which is reliant on donor funds for
very specific activities.
* There was no order for payment of Biowatch South Africa’s costs,
even though the organisation was successful in its application to
the court.

If the application for leave to appeal is successful the appeal will be heard by the full bench of the Pretoria High Court or, alternatively, the Supreme Court of Appeal.

ENDS

For more information or queries, please contact

Leslie Liddell on 021 447 5939 OR 073 307 8873