Sunday Leader: Colombo: Saturday, June 02, 2018.
The Right To
Information (RTI) Commission has raised concerns over a clause in the proposed
Audit Bill.
In a
statement the Right to Information Commission (RTIC) expressed its particular
concern in reference to clause 9 (1) (b) of the proposed Audit Bill(gazette
issued on 16.03.2018) and presently before Parliament which stipulates that
members of the Audit Service Commission, any person appointed to any office
under the Audit Act or any other person assisting any such person for the
purpose of carrying out the provisions under this Act or a qualified auditor
engaged by the Auditor General shall not disclose any information received in the
performance of duties until documentation in that regard is placed before
Parliament. The only exception will be where there is a request of Parliament
or an order of court.
The Bill
proposed to afford this protection unconditionally, without any assessment as
to whether such a wide prohibition is necessary in a democratic society,
without due regard as to whether grave prejudice will be caused by the release
of information thereby and without any time period being specified in regard to
the potential presentation of such report or statement before Parliament.
The RTIC is
concerned that a ‘chilling effect’ may be created by this general prohibition.
This concern is reinforced by the fact that the Bill provides that any ‘member
or person or qualified auditor who communicates any such matter to any person
or suffers or permits any unauthorized person to have access to any books,
papers or other records relating to any such matter, commits an offence.’
General prohibitions on information and the criminalization of information
disclosure that is in disobedience thereto are contrary to the letter and
spirit of the RTI Act.
The RTIC
emphasizes the fact that the precedent set by shielding some offices and
individuals from RTI in this manner will dilute the victories gained for Sri
Lankans through the enactment of a globally recognized law, risk a gravely
negative impact on the embryonic development of the country’s Right to
Information regime and discourage largely positive tendencies evidenced so far
by Public Authorities in dismantling a decades-old culture of secrecy and
denial of legitimate information.
The
commission noted the importance of upholding the public right to know which is
a core principle of the RTI Act.
It is
reminded in this regard that the RTI Act is premised on the principle of
maximum disclosure while protecting specific interests (national security,
privacy, law and order etc). These interests are, in turn, subjected to an
overriding public interest test. As such, the RTI Act does not place specific
categories or classes of documents or the functioning of specific offices
beyond the reach of information requesters.
Consequently
RTIC says draft laws currently in the public domain that proposes to place
selected state offices on an advantaged position as against others and enforce
general prohibitions on citizens asking for information on the due and proper
functioning of such offices raise legitimate concerns as to whether this will
create exclusive domains of privilege for those offices.