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