The ANC stated yesterday the party's unqualified opposition to corruption, but refused to bow to pressure for public disclosure of who its funders were.

"There are particular features of South African society that militate powerfully against compulsory and unregulated disclosure, where that takes place other than through this country's democratic processes," said ANC secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe in an affidavit to the Cape High Court.

The affidavit was in response to an application by the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa) to compel the ANC, the DA, the Inkatha Freedom Party and the New National Party to open their books for public scrutiny in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act.

Addressing the court on behalf of the ANC, Karel Tipp SC, said at the heart of their case was the "fundamental question" whether or not this sort of review could proceed through a court of law as opposed to parliament.

Tipp said the "crusading nature" of Idasa meant it was susceptible to impatience and submitted it was this impatience which led to the court challenge instead of allowing the legislative process to take its course.

"The court can't create mechanisms to regulate, monitor and enforce, only parliament can," said Tipp.

According to Motlanthe's affidavit, the ANC sought the dismissal of the application or a stay of proceedings so that the political and legislative process regulating the funding of political parties could run its course.

He said policy-making decisions of the party were not influenced by donations.

"I state unequivocally that under absolutely no circumstances will the ANC solicit or accept a donation in return for any trade-off or quid pro quo undertaking on its part."

Motlanthe said the disclosure of funders' identities could have a "deleterious" effect on democracy.

He said legislation dealing with funders was presently on the table.

John Butler for Idasa, however, said there had been no progress since 2002 in adopting a related bill, known as the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Amendment Bill.

The private bill was introduced by the DA's Douglas Gibson.

Butler said it looked like the Gibson bill was "dead and buried".

Butler said there appeared to be a "conspiracy of silence" between companies, political parties and foreign governments over party funding.

Idasa sought to establish the principle that political parties were obliged to give details of their substantial private donations to those asking for that information.

They argued that disclosure of donations was required for the proper functioning of a multiparty democratic system and to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.

Citizens needed to know to whom a party, its office bearers and members might be beholden.

Disclosure of the identity of major donors was necessary to ensure parties and candidates were free from inappropriate obligations.

Idasa was only seeking access to records of donations over R50 000, the purpose being to compel disclosure only in respect of donations that were sufficiently substantial to influence a political party, its office bearers and its members.

The case is set down for two days with Judge Ben Griesel presiding.

The African Christian Democratic Party decided to reveal the extent of private funding it received.

The IFP was not represented in court, filing a notice on Tuesday that it would abide by the court's decision.

With acknowledgements to Sapa and the Cape Times.