PSCs and transparency

The Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) appointed to investigate the Easter Sunday attacks held its first sitting earlier this week, triggering a debate on transparency versus national security. This has started a new discourse on how much the public have the right to know critical information without endangering national security. 

Since Wednesday the Opposition has been almost apoplectic in their denunciation of the PSC allowing media to be present at the hearing. Their argument is that summoning the heads of the security forces as well as the Defence Secretary will lead to sensitive information leaking to the public. Another set of top military officials are reported to have expressed their dissatisfaction over politicians being allowed to ask them questions. 

However, anyone who has actually read the reporting on the proceedings of the first session would be hard pressed to find Intelligence Chief Sisira Mendis or the Secretary to the Defence Ministry Shantha Kottegoda having made statements on information that was not already in the public domain. While the concern over sensitive national security information being revealed during PSC sessions are legitimate, there are many ways to ensure that this does not in fact take place. For example, the reporters present at the hearing was specifically requested to maintain the highest levels of accuracy when reporting the proceedings, which have been adhered to. They are aware of the seriousness of the situation and have the responsibility of acting accordingly. 

Moreover, steps can be taken to redact information, even during the sessions, to ensure that sensitive information is not accidentally revealed. If necessary the sessions can be taped and released after a review or the feed can be delayed so that if there is sensitive information it can be immediately suspended. In fact during the first sitting of the PSC the live feed was stopped, though the reasons have not been made clear to the public. Documents submitted during the sessions are also kept confidential.   

Transparency is a critical component of a democracy. In the US, for example the Senate and the Congress have oversight committees that have the power to summon and question top level officials. During investigations into alleged collusion by the Trump presidential campaign with Russia even former FBI head James Comey was summoned for questioning and his statements were live broadcast around the world. This was a matter that had direct impact on US national security but it was deemed to be important given the impact it had on the country’s democratic process. 

Sri Lanka, however, has a long history of keeping its defence information highly secret. This is not to say that secrecy is not justified but there are times when information can be made available to the public because it is the public’s right to know. The PSC was appointed to investigate the events that led up to the horrific Easter Sunday attacks because both the top leaders of the country have made statements that have raised huge concerns about management, inclusion and cooperation on security matters at the highest levels of Government. These statements have been so serious that the Government is suffering from a severe lapse of public confidence. It was the citizens of this country that suffered from the Easter Sunday attack that left hundreds of bereaved families feeling utterly lost, confused and angry at their political leaders. As such the public have a right to know why the defence and political establishment, which is run on taxpayer funds, let them down so severely. It may not be to everyone’s liking that politicians are conducting the PSC sessions but as members of Parliament they represent the people. If PSC sessions are done right it has the capacity to help a bewildered country still seeking closure to find some answers and perhaps hold the right people accountable.