Ghana Web: Ghana: Friday, April
15, 2016.
Private legal
practitioner Samson Lardy Anyenini says it is wrong to argue that the Right to
Information law is not needed because a court ruling proves that information is
already accessible.
He explained
that access to information is still restricted by the state and that the ruling
applied only to a specific case sent to court by pressure group, Citizens Ghana
Movement.
Pro-transparency
activists are celebrating a High Court ruling on Wednesday, ordering the State
to release full details of a 'scandalous' $3.9million contract with Smarttys
Management and Production company.
It emerged
that the contract to rebrand 116 buses with pictures of the President and the
former presidents was over-priced. The court ordered the state to release
information on the contract to Citizen Ghana Movement.
In a Facebook
post Thursday, lawyer Anyenini, however, explained the value of the ruling, saying
it makes the case for the passage of the RTI bill compelling.
“This
decision is a real big deal for the fight for access to information” he wrote
hailing the ruling.
Nonetheless,
the host of news analysis program, Newsfile, said only a law such as the Right
to Information law can enable citizens to get information from state agencies
without resorting to a court ruling.
Below is the
full Facebook post
This is
intended simply to counter any suggestion that an RTI law is no longer
necessary. I haven't heard the CG make any such argument, though.
The Human
Rights Court vindicated the Fundamental Human Rights of the 7 named Applicants.
But the benefits of the ultimate outcome are available to all citizens. The
State (i.e Transport Ministry and AG) will be in contempt if it disregards or
does not comply fully with the orders as regards this application.
Will the
State (i.e Transport Ministry and AG) be in contempt of this or any other court
if it repeats the act that provoked this application by refusing/declining to
supply information to citizens on any transaction(s) now or in the future? NO!
The orders
are directed specifically at the Transport Ministry and the AG – the
Respondents in this case. The 14 days order counting from the day of filing of
entry of judgment upon payment of the fees, correctly speaking is not an order
that extends to any other entity.
It is
advised, though, that other public entities (not parties to this suit) should
endeavour to act in good faith to adopt the principle position of this case for
purposes of furthering our democracy and avoiding similar suits in the absence
of the RTI Law which stipulates all necessary steps from application to
timelines and fees for accessing information including sanctions for breaches
of the law.
I ask, won't
any such refusal (repeat of what led to this embarrassing compulsion to act
right by the people) in future lead rather to a fresh suit relying on this
precedent? YES!
When that
happens, will any other High Court be bound by this decision? NO!
Was this
court exactly invited to and did it engage in interpretation of the
Constitution which exercise is the exclusive preserve of the Supreme Court? NO!
Would a
Supreme Court decision on same (declarations) have different implications? YES!
This decision
is a real big deal for the fight for access to information and the
constitutional right of and to assert same, but not a substitute for an RTI Law
which will be binding on all including the courts.
The
Constitution guarantees right to be registered and to vote in elections and
referenda, does it provide the mechanics for voter registration and voting? NO!
.JPG)
.JPG)
