MOGOENG CJ and “most generous supporters”.56 That said, whether they should be required to record and disclose any and every help, is a matter best left to Parliament to reflect and decide on. [76] It does not fall within the remit of this Court to prescribe to Parliament whether the recordal, preservation and disclosure of all information relating to private funding should be regulated in terms of PAIA, or PAIA and another legislation or PAIA and other measures. Again, that is a decision to be taken by Parliament itself. Our duty is to articulate the unfulfilled obligation in broad terms, but with sufficient clarity to give Parliament a fair sense of what is required of it. We are required to provide broad guidelines on what could be considered by Parliamentarians in developing a fitting regulatory framework in this connection. The fundamental principle that must be underscored here is that information on the private funding of political parties and independent candidates must be “held” or “recorded”, preserved and be reasonably accessible. Leave to appeal [77] For the above reasons, the application for leave to appeal against the High Court’s exclusion of the words “continuous and systematic” recordal and disclosure in the order is granted. This is done because there are indeed reasonable prospects of success and it is in the interests of justice to do so. But, the appeal must itself be dismissed. Voters will get all they need based on the appropriately modified order granted by the High Court guided by the reasoning in this judgment. The words sought to be added are not only prescriptive but superfluous. [78] The contention that the order must stipulate that the recordal and disclosure of information must be “continuous and systematic” was addressed by the majority in this Court in the My Vote Counts judgment as follows: 56 See Buckley above n 4 para 67. 30