Who should the Information Officer be in an Estate?

During the recent Association of Residential Communities (ARC) Chapter meetings, discussion took place about who the Information Officer should be in estates. This arose because it was stated that in the Information Regulator’s Draft Code of Conduct for Gated Access that the Information Officer is the Chairman in an estate.

Information Office Training

On reviewing the draft code, it was noted that it is not prescriptive, but it states that the body corporate, HOA or private body should decide who it is.  This does not take forms of estates, other laws, corporate governance practices or their own Guidelines on Information Officer and Deputy Information Officers into account.

The answer to the question – Who should the Information Officer be in an Estate depends on the legal form of the estate.  The forms of estate organisations typically include the following:

  • Non-Profit Companies (NPC)
  • Non- Profit Orgsanisations (NPO)
  • Voluntary Associations (VO)
  • Bodies Corporate (BC)

Before we consider the legal forms, the statutory starting point must be noted.

1. The Statutory Starting Point

Under both PAIA (section 1) and POPIA (section 1), the “Information Officer” (IO) of a private body is, by default, whoever occupies the position of Chief Executive Officer or equivalent officer of that body, or any person duly authorised by that person. POPIA does not create a new class of appointee, it relies on the PAIA definition. The HOA does not get to invent this role from scratch; the law points to where it naturally sits.

For a residential estate HOA, “equivalent officer” is a question of legal form — which is precisely where the Companies Act, the NPO Act, the STSMA and common law each become relevant in different ways.  These are considered below.

  1. How the HOA’s Legal Form Determines the Default IO

Most residential estate HOAs are not sectional title bodies corporate — the STSMA governs bodies corporate under the Sectional Titles Act, a different regime to an HOA governing freehold or share-block erven. This is a common point of confusion, so the applicable regime should be identified explicitly for each estate:

  • Non-Profit Companies (NPC). HOAs incorporated as a non-profit company (NPC) under the Companies Act are the most common structure. An NPC has no single CEO unless one has been appointed, normally an Estate Manager (may have the title CEO or GM). He or she would then be the Information Officer. Where there is no Estate Manager appointment, typically in very small HOAs, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, or a director/officer designated by the Board, will be the Information Officer.
  • HOA registered as an NPO under the Nonprofit Organisations Act. The NPO Act does not itself prescribe an Information Officer, but its governance requirements (a governing body accountable for administration, section 12) point to the same conclusion: the chairperson or a designated member of the management committee.
  • HOA constituted as a common-law voluntary association (Constitution/Deed of Conditions only, no Companies Act or NPO Act registration) — again the chairperson of the Board of Trustees/Directors is the default, since PAIA/POPIA look for the person with overall executive authority, not a statutory label.
  • Sectional Title Schemes Management Act — relevant only where the estate (or part of it) is also a sectional title scheme with its own body corporate. That body corporate is a separate private body from the HOA, with its own IO obligations, typically resting with the chairperson of the trustees or a managing agent acting under mandate. The two structures should not be combined, each entity processing personal information (levy records, access control biometrics, visitor logs, etc.) needs its own IO designation.

3. Who Should Actually Be Appointed as the Information Officer?

While the default IO may technically be the chair or senior office-bearer, POPIA permits the head to designate the IO function. In practice, for an HOA, defaulting the role onto the chairperson is often the wrong operational choice, even though it may be the correct legal starting point. Reasons include:

  • Capacity and continuity — HOA chairs are typically elected annually, often as unpaid volunteers, and turn over frequently. Tying the IO role to elected office creates registration churn and loss of institutional memory.
  • Duties and Competence — the role carries real operational compliance duties including PAIA manual maintenance, POPIA compliance framework development, maintenance and continual improvement, handling access and objection requests, liaising with the Information Regulator and breach notification. This calls for aptitude and availability, not necessarily the person best suited to chair board meetings.

Recommended practice: The Board should formally designate and appoint the Estate Manager where there is one or a specific director or trustee with clear terms of reference as the IO in terms of the duties and responsibilities required by POPIA, PAIA and the POPIA Regulations.  The IO should also appoint one or more Deputy Information Officers depending on the size of the organisation. The designations must be registered with the Information Regulator via their e-services portal at https://eservices.inforegulator.org.za/.

4. Alignment with the King V Code on Corporate Governance 

King V (effective for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2026, replacing King IV) reframes governance around outcomes — ethical culture, performance and sustainable value creation, conformance and prudent control, and legitimacy — and gives explicit prominence to information and technology as governance assets that the governing body must oversee, not merely delegate away in substance. Applied to the IO appointment:

  • Governing body accountability — the Board (or trustees) remains accountable for information governance even after designating an IO. King V’s outcomes-based approach means the Board must be able to show evidence that data protection risk (resident PII, biometric access data, visitor logs, financial/levy records) is actually being managed, not merely that a name has been submitted to the Regulator.
  • Oversight structure — it is good practice for the Board to receive a standing report from the IO (for example, quarterly): request logs, incidents, and training status, so oversight is demonstrable and documented, consistent with King V’s evidentiary emphasis on showing the link between decision and consequence.
  • Skills and independence — King V’s leadership principles support choosing an IO for competence and capacity to discharge the role objectively, reinforcing that the role should not simply follow whoever happens to chair the Board.

5. Practical Summary

Structure Default IO (legal) Recommended Designation
NPC under Companies Act Board chairperson / designated director Estate Manager designated by Board resolution, with a Deputy IO for continuity or a designed director if there is no Estate Manager
NPO Act registration Chair of management committee Same as above
Common-law association Chair of trustees/directors Same as above
Sectional title body corporate (if applicable, separate from the HOA) Chair of trustees Chair or Trustee under a clear mandate, registered separately or a Managing agent.

 

The document has been with consideration against the Companies Act 71 of 2008, the Nonprofit Organisations Act 71 of 1997, the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011, and the King V Code on Corporate Governance

Please Note: This document is intended as governance guidance and does not constitute legal advice. Specific appointment decisions should be recorded by way of a formal Board resolution and confirmed with the Information Regulator’s registration portal

Prepared by John Cato

Certified Data Protection Officer (CDPO)

IACT-Africa

13 August 2026

© IACT-Africa, 2026. All rights reserved