LFN Goes to Court: The Battle Over Your Personal Information Has Begun

Excerpt: LFN has officially taken South Africa’s identity-data battle to the High Court in Cape Town. What began as scrutiny of the proposed Digital ID system has now exposed a much deeper constitutional question: on what lawful terms may the State allow banks, insurers, public bodies and other institutions to access or verify information from the National Population Register? LFN is challenging the legal framework, the current regulations and the way systematic real-time and batch verification may be implemented, while calling for the full Rule 53 record to reveal how access to our personal information is actually authorised and controlled. The case also places the actions of DA Minister of Home Affairs Dr Leon Schreiber under direct judicial scrutiny, following the 2025 amendment to the verification-fee regime and the later 2026 Digital ID proposals. The full article explains why this case may reach far beyond Digital IDs — and why every South African should be paying attention.

Read the Court Papers at the end…

If you like our work, why not consider a donation or gift of your choice?

or make a quick donation… MobiPaid

There are moments when an investigation takes you somewhere you never expected to go.

For Liberty Fighters Network (“LFN”), South Africa’s proposed Digital ID system was supposed to be the subject.

Instead, it became the torch that illuminated something much older, much bigger, and potentially far more serious.

While scrutinising the proposed Digital ID regulations, we went backwards into the existing Identification Act and Regulations to understand exactly what foundation this new digital system would be built upon.

And what we found changed the entire battle.

The problem may not merely be what government wants to do with our identities tomorrow.

The problem may be what has already been happening to our personal information for years.

LFN has therefore done what we warned we would do.

We have gone to court.

The constitutional application has now been instituted in the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town.

The First Applicant is Liberty Fighters Network.

I am cited as Second Applicant nomine officio in my capacity as President and executive office-bearer of LFN.

And on the other side?

The First Respondent is Dr Leon Schreiber, Minister of Home Affairs.

The Second Respondent is Mr Livhuwani Tommy Makhode, Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs.

And that is where this story becomes particularly interesting.

A DA Minister, Digital IDs — and the database beneath them

Minister Schreiber is a Democratic Alliance (“DA”) politician serving as Minister of Home Affairs in the Government of National Unity.

That fact matters because this case did not suddenly fall into his lap from some forgotten administration.

Under Schreiber’s tenure, the Identification Regulations were amended during June 2025 to introduce the current tariff structure for real-time and batch furnishing of information from South Africa’s National Population Register.

From 1 July 2025, Home Affairs rolled out what it publicly described as an upgraded National Population Register verification service to companies and government users.

The Department proudly presented the project as an improvement to identity verification.

The DA publicly welcomed the reform.

Then came 2026.

Minister Schreiber published proposed amendments intended to create South Africa’s new Digital Identity system — including digital identity credentials, remote biometric verification and interoperability between Home Affairs and parts of the public and private sectors.

The stated objective was modernisation.

But while everyone was staring at the shiny new Digital ID being built in front of us, LFN decided to inspect the foundations underneath it.

And that is where things became uncomfortable.

The law begins by saying your information is secret

Section 21(1) of the Identification Act, 1997 begins from an important principle.

Information obtained through the administration of the Act is protected against publication or communication, subject to limited exceptions.

That sounds reassuring.

It should.

The National Population Register is not an ordinary database.

It is effectively the State’s identity vault.

Depending upon the information lawfully recorded, it deals with matters capable of identifying you as a human being and citizen or resident — including names, identity numbers, dates and places of birth, citizenship information, residential particulars, marital information, photographs, fingerprints and other civic-status information.

This is some of the most sensitive information government can possess about us.

But then comes section 21(2).

And the door begins to open.

The exception may be swallowing the protection

Section 21(2) allows the Director-General to furnish population-register information to broad classes of recipients.

Those categories include State bodies, banks, insurers and, extraordinarily broadly, “any other organisation, body, society or institution”.

But Parliament did not simply say: “Here is the database — help yourselves.”

The section expressly says that the furnishing of information is subject to prescribed:

restrictions, conditions, exclusions, directives and fees.

Section 21(3) also imposes a purpose threshold.

So far, so good.

Until one asks the obvious question:

Where is the comprehensive safeguard framework?

That question lies at the heart of LFN’s High Court application.

We found regulations telling users how much systematic access can cost.

We found a tariff for real-time transactions.

We found a tariff for batch verification.

But where is the equally detailed public legal framework answering questions such as:

Who qualifies for systematic access?

Exactly what information may each category receive?

When is disclosure actually necessary?

When should a simple “yes/no” verification be used instead of revealing data?

How is proportionality assessed?

How long may information be retained?

May it be matched against another database?

May it be passed to somebody else?

Who audits the recipient?

How does an ordinary South African discover that his or her information was queried?

How does that person challenge an erroneous or unlawful verification?

When must access be suspended?

What happens when information escapes?

Who is accountable?

And what meaningful remedy exists afterwards?

Those are not decorative questions.

They are the difference between an identity-verification system and an identity-surveillance architecture.

R10 for real-time. R1 per field in batches.

The existing regulation 15(d) now prices real-time furnishing of population-register information at R10 per transaction.

Batch furnishing is priced at R1 per verification field requested.

That does not, according to LFN’s case, mean that somebody acquires a legal entitlement to your information simply by paying the price.

And this distinction is important.

One of the declarations specifically sought from the High Court is that regulation 15(d) is merely a tariff provision.

It prices a transaction that must already be lawful.

It cannot turn an unlawful transaction into a lawful one.

Put differently:

A price tag is not a privacy safeguard.

And payment is not permission.

That simple proposition may become one of the most important questions in this case.

LFN is challenging the architecture, not trying to shut Home Affairs down

There is something equally important for our supporters to understand.

LFN is not asking the High Court to prohibit all identity verification.

We are not trying to destroy the National Population Register.

We are not asking the Court to make fraud prevention impossible.

And we are not pretending that modern government can operate without reliable identity systems.

Identity verification has perfectly legitimate purposes.

Banks must prevent fraud.

Government must know whether it is dealing with the correct person.

Benefits must reach the right beneficiary.

Criminal identity theft must be combated.

The question is not whether identity may ever be verified.

The question is:

On what lawful constitutional terms may the State permit systematic access to the identity information of millions of people?

That is a very different case.

Three possible places where the constitutional problem may lie

LFN has deliberately not pretended that we already know everything happening inside Home Affairs.

That information is largely under the control of the State.

The application therefore attacks the problem at three possible levels.

The first possibility is the most serious:

The defect may lie in section 21 of the Identification Act itself.

If Parliament gave the Executive a power capable of permitting systematic access to highly sensitive information without giving sufficiently precise guidance about how that power may limit the constitutional right to privacy, then the statutory provision itself may be unconstitutional.

The second possibility is different:

Perhaps section 21 can constitutionally survive — but only if the restrictions, conditions, exclusions and directives mentioned in the Act are treated as genuine legal preconditions to systematic access.

If that is the correct interpretation, the next question is devastatingly simple:

Were those safeguards actually prescribed?

And then there is the third possibility:

The legislation may be capable of lawful operation, but particular regulations, policies, access frameworks or implementation decisions may have exceeded what the law permits.

That is why LFN has invoked Uniform Rule 53.

We want the record.

Open the files

The Minister and Director-General have been called upon to produce the Rule 53 record relating to the decisions and administrative arrangements under challenge.

That record potentially goes far beyond one Gazette.

LFN seeks the decision-making material relevant to the June 2025 regulation amendment and the systems through which population-register verification is actually authorised and controlled.

That potentially includes policies, directives, access criteria, authorisations, data-sharing or access frameworks, relevant privacy and security assessments, POPIA prior-authorisation material where applicable, and information showing how external recipients obtain systematic verification access.

This is where the case could become fascinating.

Because arguments are one thing.

Records are another.

The real question is not merely what government says the system is supposed to do.

The Rule 53 process allows the Court to examine the material relevant to how the system was actually authorised.

And we have deliberately notified the industries that may care

LFN has not cited every bank, insurer, communications company or other possible verification user as a Respondent.

Doing so without knowing which entities possess direct and substantial legal interests would turn the case into a procedural monster before the Rule 53 record has even arrived.

Instead, the application identifies potentially interested bodies for notification and possible intervention.

These include the Minister of Finance, the Information Regulator, the Financial Intelligence Centre, the Banking Association South Africa, the Association for Savings and Investment South Africa and the Association of Communications and Technology.

They can decide for themselves whether they want to enter the arena.

And if the record later shows that a particular institution has a direct legal interest requiring joinder, LFN can address that through the Rule 53 process.

For now, the constitutional question belongs squarely at the feet of those administering the system:

the Minister of Home Affairs and his Director-General.

The DA cannot distance itself from this chapter

There is an uncomfortable political dimension which should not simply disappear behind bureaucratic language.

The Minister presently responsible is a DA minister.

The 2025 population-register verification reform happened under his administration.

The DA publicly celebrated that reform.

The 2026 Digital Identity amendments were then published by that same Minister.

And the proposed Digital ID framework itself contemplates an increasingly interconnected future involving digital credentials, biometrics and interaction between public and private systems.

That does not, by itself, prove constitutional wrongdoing by the Minister or the DA.

The High Court must determine the legal issues on evidence.

But politically and administratively, accountability cannot be outsourced backwards forever.

When a political party celebrates a reform as its success, it must equally be prepared for that reform to be scrutinised when constitutional questions arise.

Government cannot claim the ribbon-cutting ceremony and disown the foundations beneath the building.

That is not how accountability works.

The question we originally asked has changed

When this journey began, LFN was asking:

“What could happen to our personal information if Digital IDs go wrong?”

Today the question is much more troubling:

“What has already been happening under the identity-verification system we already have?”

We do not yet know the full answer.

That matters.

LFN does not allege, without evidence, that every South African’s information has been sold unlawfully.

We do not know which entities received which information, under what arrangements, with what restrictions, for how long, or subject to what auditing.

That is precisely why the record matters.

But uncertainty does not make the constitutional question disappear.

It makes transparency more urgent.

And what if the architecture was unlawful?

This is where the consequences could become enormous.

LFN is presently seeking prospective and carefully calibrated constitutional relief.

We are specifically not asking the High Court automatically to unravel every historic verification transaction.

That would be reckless.

The Notice of Motion expressly preserves completed past transactions as a class, while leaving intact the right of an individual to challenge a particular past disclosure, verification or processing operation upon its own facts.

That distinction matters.

Because if evidence ultimately reveals that particular people had their personal information unlawfully furnished, processed, retained or disseminated, entirely different consequences may follow.

Claims involving privacy.

Dignity.

POPIA.

Constitutional damages where legally competent.

And, depending upon what the evidence eventually reveals, potentially collective or class-based litigation.

We are not there yet.

But neither can anyone honestly say anymore that the possibility is imaginary.

First, we need the record.

Digital identity did not create this problem

Perhaps the most important revelation in this entire investigation is this:

Systematic population-register verification did not begin with Digital ID.

Digital ID merely caused us to look closely enough to notice what was already there.

That turns the public debate upside down.

The argument can no longer simply be:

“Do you trust the State with a future Digital ID?”

The more fundamental question is:

“What legal walls already exist around the identity database the State has been operating all along?”

Because there is very little comfort in being promised better locks on tomorrow’s digital front door if nobody can adequately explain who has been walking through today’s back door.

The High Court is now being asked to draw the constitutional line

Among the relief sought, LFN asks the High Court to determine whether sections 21(2)(b), (c) and (d), read with section 21(3), are constitutionally invalid to the extent that they permit systematic furnishing or verification without adequate safeguards.

Alternatively, LFN asks the Court to interpret section 21 as permitting systematic access only within an adequate and ascertainable safeguards framework.

The existing Regulations are also challenged insofar as they facilitate systematic real-time and batch furnishing without properly providing that framework.

The Minister’s 2025 decision relating to regulation 15(d) is placed under review.

So too are implementation decisions of the Director-General that may be identified when the Rule 53 record arrives.

And if constitutional invalidity is established, LFN does not ask the judiciary to simply pull the plug overnight.

The Court is asked to provide a constitutionally responsible cure, potentially allowing government time to fix the problem while protecting lawful verification services and the rights of the public.

That is the difference between reform and destruction.

LFN is interested in the former.

Your identity is not government merchandise

This case ultimately rests upon a principle that every South African should be able to understand without a law degree.

Government may require information from us for legitimate purposes.

Government may keep a population register.

Government may verify identity.

Government may fight fraud.

Government may modernise.

But none of that means that the constitutional relationship between the citizen and the State disappears when somebody connects an API to a database.

A fingerprint is not a password.

Your face is not a barcode.

Your identity number is not merely another field in somebody’s commercial dataset.

And the National Population Register is not a vending machine where the only important question is whether somebody inserted the correct fee.

Before South Africa races into a future of Digital IDs, facial biometrics, real-time verification and interconnected government services, somebody needs to inspect the constitutional foundations beneath all of it.

LFN has now asked the High Court to do exactly that.

The Minister had the opportunity to answer us outside court.

According to our founding papers, despite confirmed receipt of LFN’s formal constitutional demand, no response was forthcoming.

The questions have therefore moved from the Minister’s inbox to the High Court.

And this time, the answers may have to form part of the record.

LFN has gone to court.

The battle over your personal information has begun.

If you like our work, why not consider a donation or gift of your choice?

or make a quick donation… MobiPaid

The Issued High Court Application (uploaded on 29 September 2026 at 12h10):