Will it curtail corruption, bring back accountability
and transparency in public office?:
RTI, a reality soon
by Manjula Fernando
The Right to Information Bill (RTI) which may catapult Sri Lankan
citizens to a new level of empowerment, is on the verge of seeing the
light of day. Last week the Supreme Court ruled minor amendments to the
draft bill so that it can be passed in Parliament with a simple
majority.
The Government has accepted these four amendments and said these
amendments will be taken on board. A statement to this effect was issued
by Deputy Media Minister Karunaratne Paranavithana who is overseeing the
RTI Bill. Therefore, rest assured that the RTI laws are well on the path
to becoming a reality.
For one thing, it will certainly be an important milestone/landmark
for the Good Governance Government. It will clear the way to uphold
accountable, interactive and participatory democracy which the
government and President Maithripala Sirisena have avowed in the
election manifestos.
The law will be a blow on the culture of secrecy in public office
which stemmed from the era of colonial rule. It will be the beginning of
a new era of democratisation of information and knowledge. Citizens will
be empowered to question, audit and review public accounts over matters
which concern them.
However, will the Right to Information laws be a cure for all ills?
Will it be an effective tool to curtail corruption, bring back
accountability and transparency in public office? The answer could be
yes and no. If the people are uneducated of their new rights and if
bureaucratic red tape continues to be the order of the day, the RTI will
be a futile piece of legislature.
For instance, in India RTI laws came into force on October 12, 2005.
As much as it has empowered people to demand information, there is less
impact on curbing corruption than what was anticipated.
Transparency International in reference to RTI says, “In general,
several studies have found that access to information is positively
correlated to control of corruption.”
However, the international rights group is of the view that the
actual impact of RTI laws and sustainable change seems to depend on a
series of other factors such as strong political will and establishment
of independent and well-resourced oversight bodies.
“As demonstrated by several studies, the RTI law alone can have a
positive impact and help in the solution of specific cases, but it is
unlikely to bring sustainable change if not effectively implemented. “
Therefore, it is acknowledged that the written law must be
supplemented by a clear legal framework, appeal mechanisms, training and
capacity building of public officials. Awareness raising activities to
inform citizens, civil society, the media and companies on how to
exercise their right-to-know is the catalyst of this entire campaign.
As much as people need to be aware of their newly acquired power,
those citizens who know the law should also muster the ‘guts’ to
question public officials.
Sri Lanka’s draft law before the House has impressive laws to empower
citizens.
A Transparency International of Sri Lanka (TISL) spokesperson said
the proposed law has received accolades as one of the best frameworks
for RTI laws in the world by a reputed Canadian institute.
In contrast to the Indian law and the US law, the proposed Sri Lankan
law requires that public officials respond within 14 working days to an
application seeking information. The US and Indian laws allow the
response to be given within 30 days upon receipt of the application.
But there are some grey areas as well. When it comes to restriction
of information, citizen groups have questioned the need to withhold
details of economic or financial policy and international agreements
which have no relation to defence or national security.
The relevant sections imposing restrictions were challenged in the
Court. Four petitions were filed by interested parties including an
attorney-at-law and a retired Army officer. The Supreme Court in its
ruling last Tuesday, informed Parliament that the draft law was
inconsistent with the Constitution.
It proposed minor amendments to the Bill, adding that failure to
accommodate amendments will require a two-thirds majority in Parliament
and a referendum to pass the Bill. The government has already consented
to accommodate the amendments when the Bill is taken up for debate,
which is the next step.
The petitioners claimed the clauses 5 (1) (c) (v), 5 (1) (d), 5 (1)
(j), 5(3), 6, 8 (1), 9(2) (a), 12, 19, 20, 40, 43 violated the Articles
3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 27 and 111c of the Constitution.
Article 14 A refers to right to information guaranteed by the
Constitution and the restrictions therein. The main argument of the
petitioners was that information with regard to the economy of Sri Lanka
did not fall within the restrictions imposed by Article 14 A of the
Constitution. But Counsel argued that in some instances national
security involves trade, economy and financial matters and this
restriction will govern only such cases. It will not be a blanket
prohibition on all related information.
Prof. Sarath Wijesooriya, Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera, All Ceylon
Teachers’ Union Secretary Joseph Stalin, Co-convener of Trade Unions
Collective Saman Rathnapriya and Transparency International among others
had been intervenient petitioners in the case.
Although empirical evidence on the impact of RTI laws is scarce, in
India there is general agreement that the laws have brought a positive
impact with people in even the most backward areas supported by
activists to question the progress of welfare schemes. These include
labourer employment schemes in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
RTI means the government is expected to justify the actions or
decisions it is taking. Officials are aware that they can be asked
questions seeking information. The RTI Act in India and the one to be
enacted in Sri Lanka, are more or less the same when it comes to
information that can or cannot be shared. And in both, an aggrieved
party can appeal to specific courts. In Sri Lanka, the designated court
for RTI cases is the Court of Appeal while in India, they are the
provincial High Courts and the Supreme Court.
There is, however, an interesting difference, the Sri Lankan RTI bill
prohibits publication of information gathered through RTI laws, but the
Indian law is silent on this.
A senior Indian journalist said, it is generally assumed that
journalists are using the RTI to the hilt in India, but this is not
true. The most active RTI act users are rural and downtrodden people in
the backward areas of India. NGOs, social activists and anti-corruption
activists are the heavy users of the Indian Act.
He said although the Indian RTI Act has been a success, the RTI
movement has a long way to go. According to him even after 11 years,
there is a lack of awareness of the usefulness of the RTI. Public apathy
is still rampant, incompetence and lack of capacity among information
officers is also an issue. Bureaucratic stonewalling continues to be a
major hurdle.
The RTI Act came to India as a result of an NGO-led grassroots level
movement in the provinces and was not conceived and executed at the top
level in the National Parliament. RTI activists had to pay a heavy price
for being in the forefront of the movement. So far, eight activists have
been murdered.
In contrast the RTI campaign in Sri Lanka received the government’s
blessings and facilitation all the way. Yet, the campaign to empower
citizens through information is a long way from the finish line.
[Amendments proposed to RTI Bill by SC]
Clause 5 (1) (j) the disclosure of such information would be in
contenmpt of court - or prejudicial to the maintenance to the authority
and impartiality of the judiciary
Clause 9 (2) (a) the words ‘member of the public’ to be replaced by
the word ‘citizen’
Clause 19 the words ‘public officers’ to be replaced by ‘public
servants’
Clause 43 (j) “higher educational institutions including private
universities and professional institutions – which are established,
recognised or licensed under any written law or funded, wholly or
partly, by the state and/or a public corporation or any statutory body
established or created by a Statute of a Provincial Council
Clause 43 (k) “private educational institutions including
institutions offering vocational or technical education, - which are
established, recognised or licensed under any written law or funded,
wholly or partly, by the state and or a public corporation or any
statutory body established or created by the Statute of a Provincial
Council |