The Right to Information (RTI) Coalition, on Thursday urged Parliament to scrutinise the Bill presented by the Executive, due to some serious shortfalls, which would undermine full enjoyment of the RTI regime in Ghana.
In a statement copied to Ghana News Agency in Accra, the RTI Coalition emphasised that the rationale for the passage of the Bill was to ensure that the public, citizens and non-citizens had access to information.
It explained that public bodies holds information in trust for the people; therefore the Bill should make sure that the right to information is not curtailed.
The coalition said the Bill should ensure maximum disclosure and should cover public and private institutions whose activities affect human rights or are publicly funded.
"These institutions should aim at providing maximum disclosure of all information that is in their possession. Information should be voluntarily disclosed without waiting for specific requests from the public," it said.
The statement called for maximum disclosure of information and acknowledged that the right to information is not absolute, as stated in
Article 21(1) (f) of the 1992 Constitution.
"However, the coalition is of the view that exempt information in the Bill should be narrowly formulated, reasonable, and necessary. Exemptions
should be based on whether the harm in disclosure outweighs the harm in non- disclosure to the public," the statement said.
The coalition noted that the right to information is a fundamental human right guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution, "its limitation can be justified only if it is reasonably necessary for the protection of the
public interest or the rights and freedoms of others".
"Every person shall have the right to information subject to such qualifications and laws as are necessary in a democratic society".
"What this means is that exemptions can be justified only if they are necessary to protect the public interest or the rights and freedoms of
others," the statement explained.
The coalition noted that exemptions must be subjected to a sufficient harm or public interest test.
"The limitation should be narrowly formulated and proportional to the legitimate purpose for which the exemption is required. These means blanket exemptions cannot be justified.
Exemptions that are too broadly formulated as to have the effect of derogating from the right to information cannot be justified," it said.
The coalition said the Bill lacked an independent enforcement organ as
the Attorney-General has been mandated to be responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the Bill.
"As part of Cabinet and Government, this represents a clear conflict of interest. An Independent Commission should be established to monitor the implementation of the law once it is passed."
The coalition stressed the need for an elaborate penalty regime, which is a necessary tool for enforcement, which would uphold timely access and accountability.
Therefore, the Bill needs to ensure that appropriate penalty measures are included to serve as a deterrent for gross misconduct, gaining personal record through false pretence, making wilful false statements, and deliberate denial of information.
The coalition noted that the Bill contained provisions that risked undermining the principle of providing timely access to information.
"Time periods for decision-making and accessing information should be reduced. Such reductions include adjusting the 21-day timeframe to decide to provide information access to 10 days, extensions of time to deal with an
application from 21 days to 14 days, and reviewing the 30-day time limit within which to notify an applicant of a decision to extend the time to deal with an application," the statement said.
The coalition pointed out that the fee requirements in the Bill are scattered and allows room for arbitrary action by public officials.
"There should be no requirement for application fees beyond the actual costs for reproducing the information requested.
"Application fees and deposits listed throughout the Bill should be reviewed, with all fees-related provisions contained in one section of the Bill," it said.
The Bill lacks recognition of chieftaincy institutions as public organs, adding that bodies that have considerable political authority and
functions can impinge on public interests if they are not included under the Bill.
The statement said such institutions should be covered under the Bill as public organs, with the term 'government agency' replaced by 'public body'.
Private institutions that are substantially funded by public institutions or undertake public functions ought to be held accountable in
providing information to the public and should therefore be included in the Bill.