Daily Mirror: Sri Lanka: Friday, June 16, 2017.
This is no
doubt due to the perseverance of Commission members despite the Commission
operating out of temporary premises and with skeletal staff.
It was
reported that the appellants were recording their appreciation of the fact that
this was a law which gave ‘ordinary people’ the right to ask questions from the
establishment. This included even public servants who have no recourse to
questioning the establishment when they themselves became the victims of
injustice. Parents of children who had been denied admission to schools without
giving reasons and journalists attempting to expose corruption in the
Provincial Council machinery have stated that they have gone before the
Commission.
No doubt, all
this is an important part of the RTI regime. RTI is a weapon that acts as a
leveler against privilege. Whether it is the politically, socially or
financially privileged makes no difference. Any citizen can file an RTI request
and cannot be questioned as to why it is being filed. If it falls within the
reach of the RTI Act, it will be granted. If not, then those refusing must
explain why and will be held responsible before the Commission.
However
citizens including journalists who file appeals to the Commission must be aware
of the legal processes even though they have been relaxed to a great extent.
The RTI Act and the Regulations allow initial information requests to be filed
electronically (through email). But appeals to the Commission must be by
registered post or person. To our mind, this safeguard must be to prevent fraud
at the appeal stage. This is necessary.
The
Commission sits on appeal against a decision of a Designated Officer (DO) in a
Public Authority in response to a rejection of an information request by an
Information Officer. A citizen cannot simply ignore an appointed DO and come
directly to the Commission saying that it is ‘of no use’ to appeal. The steps
laid down in the law must be followed. An appeal will lie directly to the
Commission only when a DO is not in place, as we understand it.
The
Commission has announced in a recent media statement that it is pleased with
the public’s use of RTI. Considerable numbers of citizens and public officers
have reached out to the Commission in these early months. Its Draft Rules on
the duties of Ministers to publish certain categories of pro-active information
in advance will soon be available for public feedback on its eagerly awaited
website.
It is a
special feature of our RTI Act that Ministers are required to publish
information regarding future projects above a particular monetary value,
including information on procurement and tender processes. These are areas
where the most corruption has been evidenced. In addition and under other
provisions of the Act, Ministers are also required to publish disbursements
under allocated budgets. This would involve, among others, costs incurred for
junkets abroad.
In a further
development, regulations are pending before Parliament to enable public access
to the declarations of assets and liabilities of parliamentarians who are
elected to office and are thus directly covered by RTI. This is a praiseworthy
development and would, no doubt, further strengthen the steadily growing RTI
regime in Sri Lanka.
What we see
taking place today is a quiet and gradual change in the culture of not asking
questions which Sri Lankans have been used to for decades. Despite all the
criticisms levelled against this Government, it is to its credit that it
brought RTI to the citizens. Its benefits will come in the years ahead if the
RTI process is supported and encouraged rather than sabotaged.