| Several weeks ago the Access to Information Bill No. 10 of 2011, was tabled in the National Assembly. That Bill is now in the Special Select Committee phase where the comments of concerned and interested individuals have been invited. The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) has decided to take advantage of this opportunity to air its perspective on this landmark piece of legislation.The GHRA said of the Bill, “considering the many years in which legislation of this nature was resisted by the current Administration, the Bill under consideration is profoundly disappointing.”One of their very first bones of contention is the fact that the Commissioner of Information (COI),Kyle Wiltjer Jersey, a position created in the legislation, is answerable directly to the President.The group notes that the margin of discretion enjoyed by the COI with respect to granting of requests for information and the “formidable” list of categories of officially exempt information add up in the end “to an agency which looks depressingly like a re-vamped version of the Government Information Agency (GINA).According to the GHRA, “The fact that the COI will be appointed by the President,Nike Air Max Sale Australia, and is subject to his Office for budgetary and staffing purposes, suggests that the Commissioner of Information (COI) is a functionary of the Ministry of Information (a portfolio currently handled by the Executive President).”The GHRA points out that Section Three (1) clearly delineates the type of information to be disseminated, calling it “public relations-oriented (and) not about decision-making processes.” They go on to note that the right of access to information held by public authorities is limited “only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons in respect of whom information is collected and held by public authorities”.But then the body highlights the fact that in three pages of definitions,Brett Favre Falcons Jersey, there is no explanation of the term “essential public interest”.According to the GHRA, the negativity “which permeates the Bill” continues with the identification of those held exempt from the law; the first of these is the President. They point out that the “fundamental principle guiding (of) any FOI Act is that all ‘public authorities’ i.e. persons placed in office by electorates and the agencies which those persons create and administer i.e. statutory bodies, public corporations and private entities which carry out public functions should be subject to disclosure legislation.”The group notes that in any elected presidency where the President can wield enormous powers, such as here in Guyana, a declaration that his office is “off-limits to freedom of information legislation demolishes the good faith of the Bill.”The GHRA goes on to say that “Extra-ordinary slothfulness is expected from the COI as reflected in granting the office 30 (thirty) days to make a decision whether or not to provide the document and 60 (sixty) days in which to fulfill a request; a period of time which can be extended by a further 60 days at the discretion of the COI. By way of comparison the equivalent requirement in the Netherlands to fulfill the request is 14 days.”The Bill renders Cabinet documents explicitly exempt in Section 27 (1) which specifically considers ‘official record of any deliberations or decision of Cabinet’ or any documents prepared by Ministers or public authorities for submission to the Cabinet. The group noted the continuation of this theme in Section 30 (1), “virtually rendering any information concerning the doings of Ministers exempt.”The Association goes on to say that “The ultimate insult to the Guyanese people is that no deliberations, documents or doings of any current Minister will ever be subject to Freedom of Information laws since it only comes into effect after the life of the current Parliament has lapsed as stated in 30(2).“The cumulative effect of Section 31 is that no disclosure can be legally required of the actions of the President, Cabinet Ministers or even Ministries with regard to any policy process. No public authority is obliged to disclose how it arrived at a particular decision, when, who and at what point it was made.”Aside from the shortcomings contained within the Bill, the GHRA also shared the belief that the proposed Bill does not adhere to the “principles internationally recognized as central to constructing fair and transparent Freedom of Information legislation.”The Association cited the Principles as outlined by Article 19,China Soccer Jerseys, a Non-Governmental Organisation based in England that specializes in freedom of expression issues and is endorsed by the UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the Special Rapporteur of the OAS Human Rights Commission.These principles include the need for maximum disclosure which establishes a presumption that all information held by public bodies should be subject to disclosure and that this presumption may be overcome only in very limited circumstances; obligation to publish which requires that not only do public bodies accede to requests for information but also that they publish and disseminate widely, documents of significant public interest.Other principles called for by Article 19 are the promotion of open government, limited scope of exemptions; process to facilitate access – which states that requests for information should be processed rapidly and fairly, and an independent review of any refusals should be available.Provisions for ensuring that requests are not deterred by high costs,College Jerseys, open meetings, precedence of disclosures and protection for whistleblowers are also included.The GHRA concluded by saying that “In light of the serious short-comings both substantive and in principle of the proposed Bill,Aaron Ramsey Arsenal Jersey UK, the GHRA recommends that it be withdrawn in its entirety and that a new Bill, based on the relevant principles … be brought early in the new Parliamentary term.” |
