RIGHT TO INFORMATION BILL: PROBLEMATIC PROVISIONS

“Freedom of information should be guaranteed as a legal and enforceable right permitting every individual to obtain records and information held by the executive, legislature and the judiciary arms of the state, as well as any government owned corporation and any other body carrying out public functions.” --Commonwealth Expert Group on the Right to Know, 1999.

30th April 2010, is the deadline for the public to submit memoranda on the Right to Information Bill to Parliament. It is expected that in the next sitting of the House, honourable members will debate the Bill with a view to having it passed into law.

It may be that during the parliamentary debate the draft provisions of the Bill would be dispassionately and objectively discussed in the spirit of public interest so that neither partisan slants nor lust for power would sway the outcomes that finalise the legislative process for such an important law as the Right to Information. But this is not yet a likely to be scenario. For in our part of the world politicians, even those on opposite sides of the partisan divide, have little difficulty in agreeing to connive against the public interest if this will consolidate their grip on power as the government of the day or government in waiting. For this reason, the public must take up the responsibility to prevent such conspiracy of our political leaders.

This is the case in the legislative process leading up to the enactment of a Right to Information (RTI) law. It must be noted that the previous government, irrespective of its many promises did not pass the Right to Information law for all the eight years it was in power. The current government is demonstrating its reluctance to pass a robust RTI Law that meets national needs and international standards, and that will keep government away from interfering with the effective development and independent implementation. There was a considerable lapse in time before the cabinet of this government announced its approval of their draft RTI Bill; And not until a public demonstration before the Bill was introduced to Parliament. Even that, there were procedural defects that compromised public engagement with the content of the Bill, as required by the Constitution. Moreover, it was not until persistent voices in civil society cried out that Parliament listened to extend the period for the public to exercise their right to interface the Bill before the commencement of Parliamentary debates. Furthermore, the Executive (represented by the Minister for Justice and Attorney General) has maintained certain provisions in the Bill that could compromise its effective implementation. it is the responsibility of the public to ensure that these problematic provisions in the RTI Bill are corrected before the Bill is passed into Law; while at the same time insisting that the correction of does not unduly delay the passage of the Bill. On such problematic provision is relates to the implementation of the law, when passd :

1: SECTION 53 OF THE BILL
53. (1) The Minister responsible for Justice has ministerial responsibility for the effective implementation of this Act, and may for that purpose issue written guidelines to agencies and ministries.

(2) Subsection (1) is in addition to paragraph (c) of article 296 of the Constitution.

(3) The Minister may
(a) conduct public education programmes and provide information for the implementation of this Act,

(b) initiate research to be conducted into matters affecting the purposes of the Act, and

(c) receive representations from the public in respect of the operation of this Act.

If the purpose of this RTI Act includes disclosure of public information from government, Why should the Minister of Justice, who is a representative of the government in power, be the implementer of the RTI Act? Will this not compromise the effectiveness of the implementation? Will it not be better to establish an independent implementation agency which is more likely to be unbiased in its implementation of the Act? There are some who argue that we don't have money to establish a whole new Commission for this purpose. But such remarks only explain how little we think of what financial loss we can save the State if we put in effective mechanisms to curb corruption and promote accountability. An independent Information Commission will, in the long term, contribute immensely in curbing corruption and prevent the loss of State funds. If we appreciate long term planning and proactive governance, then we shall scorn such excuses.

The Right to Information Bill is such an important piece of legislation that deserves an objective and nationalistic, citizen-oriented debate. We should hope that civil society will make good inputs into the draft and Parliament will accord it the dispassionate debate that it deserves so that the final content answers to the information needs of our society and also meets international best practice.

By E. Kwame Mensah, a Right-based Development Journalist.