RTI for all

THE Right to Information (RTI) Bill is a progressive piece of legislation that is so important all efforts must be made to ensure it is not diluted. 

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, releasing a missive ahead of the Bill reaching Parliament, pointed out that a slew of measures need to be considered to provide more depth to the legislation. In particular, the RTI Commission proposed to be set up under the RTI law was seen as “virtually toothless” with no power to impose any sanctions on anybody for non-compliance. The RTI Commission will not be able to impose its writ and champion the cause of transparency in the absence of powers to impose sanctions.

Under Clause 5(1) the Attorney General’s Office has included an exemption to protect its communication with Government. This is a blanket exemption which is not in tune with international best practice standards. Appointing the head of the RTI commission and removal are both given to the Constitutional Council, which could cause conflicts of interest. Selection of members must also be broad based so all stakeholders can have access to the commission.

Sections of the bill that should empower the people with economic information have in fact gone in the opposite direction, according to former Deputy Central Banker and Daily FT columnist Dr. W.A. Wijewardena. Section 5(1) (c) of the draft Bill also exempts the Central Bank from scrutiny.

The section under reference, he insists, has denied citizens access to a wide range of economic information affecting their lives. The relevant section not only prevents the disclosure of information but does so on the assumption that it would cause “serious prejudice to the economy of Sri Lanka by disclosing prematurely decisions to change or continue Government economic or financial policies”. The eminent economist has already dwelt extensively on the exemptions given to the Central Bank along with the negatives of withholding information on taxation and international trade agreements as detrimental on multiple fronts. In addition, the commission should work all working days rather than meeting once a month, as presently mandated, since complaints will not be processed fast enough. 

The same clause in the bill states trade secrets and intellectual property (IPR) related information may be disclosed in public interest but only by a public authority – the power to direct such disclosure must also be given to the RTI Commission as they are an appellate body under the RTI law.

All exemptions are not subject to a sunset clause of 10 years which means that some of the exemptions will be applicable eternally. The international best practice standard is to disclose exempt information when it is no longer sensitive and such disclosure will not harm any public interest. The same has to be extended to trade negotiations, especially in a climate where the Government has expressed its intention of engaging with nearly a dozen countries to liberalise the economy.

Proactive information disclosure categories are too limited in the Draft Bill, insists the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. It is advocated they must be expanded to include all categories mentioned in the RTI laws of Bangladesh, Khyberpakhtunkhwa in Pakistan, Mexico and India.

The list of changes may seem idealistic but the whole aim of RTI is to raise standards of accountability and for such legislation to be really meaningful they have to be effectively built and implemented. If not it will be just another law made by politicians for politicians.