The ink is not even dry on the printing press – yes, I am from that generation – when there is another one. Befuddled? The ‘Baa escape club’ piece published in this column on August 7 mentioned the notification of the twenty-third safeguard investigation in 2026 by the forty-third World Trade Organisation (WTO) member to do so.

On August 5, the WTO notified of the twenty-fourth by its forty-fourth member country. Correction: make that the forty-seventh member because the UK consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The obvious question is whether we will get to 25 safeguard initiations and 50 members. It is only August, so that’s quite possible.

If you were anticipating that this article would be about the twenty-fourth safeguard investigation, exploring it in a bit more detail, then you would be wrong. You would, however, not be wrong if you were anticipating the article challenging the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (Itac) to emulate a best practice.

Curious as to what that might be? Curious enough to pause reading and visit the WTO’s ‘WTO News and Events’ page, or search for its document ‘G/SG/N/6/GBR/2’?

If you would like me to be your guide, when you open the notify link, it opens a PDF document titled ‘Notification under Article 12.1(A) of the Agreement on Safeguards on Initiation of an Investigation and the Reasons for It: UK poly(ethylene terephthalate)’, which is better known as PET.

Under the first header, ‘1. Specify the date when the investigation was initiated’, it states that the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) had initiated the investigation on August 5, adding in the second sentence that “details on the investigation and a copy of the notice of initiation can be found on the Trade Remedies Service case file”, for which it provides a website reference.

Clicking on the link opens the ‘public file’, with this explanation: “The public file contains non-confidential versions of documents submitted by registered participants in the case. It also contains non-confidential versions of reports or other documents generated by the TRA during the investigation and links to all relevant public notices for the case.”

Below this is a table with two rows – ‘From Application’ and ‘Initiation Bundle’ – the first containing seven files, and the second six.

If this were a movie, the action would pause, and a banner would appear: ‘Years earlier’ – it might even be specific and tell you how many years earlier. Suffice it to say it predates the column.

I vividly recall phoning, yes, on a landline, Itac’s predecessor, to arrange a meeting at its premises to view the public file. Subsequently, after Itac came into being, I did so by email, still arranging to view the public file at its premises – a physical visit.

Going back to the future, on Itac’s website you will find the two brochures of interest that reference ‘Public File system’, which, if you still want to retain my services as your guide, are the ‘Trade Remedies’ brochure that states: “The Trade Remedies Unit operates a Public File system for all investigations. These files contain all non-confidential information relating to the investigation. These files are available for viewing or copying”, and the ‘Tariff Investigations’ brochure, which states: “The Tariff Investigations Unit also operates a public file system for all investigations which are available for viewing or copying.”

While the trade remedy investigation references the ‘public file’ in its Government Gazette initiation notice, such reference does not appear in the tariff application notice.

Why does Itac not only adopt the TRA’s practice, but go a step further by replicating it for tariff investigations?

By having the ‘Public File system’ remain a physical system, it continues to be discriminatory, as this means that businesses need to be either physically based in the Jacaranda City or in close proximity to it to be able to view the file or, as I suspect, have to engage a consultant to do so on their behalf.

Since Itac already publishes an array of notices, reports, and minutes on its website, why not also provide access to its ‘Public File system’? Why keep it exclusive to physical examination while all else resides in an electronic landscape?