News
RTI Com dismisses SriLankan Airlines refusal to divulge info on CEO’s salary
The Right to Information (RTI) Commission has dismissed an objection by SriLankan Airlines that it was exempt from divulging such information as salaries and allowances of its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) on the grounds that it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the RTI Act.
In its decision dated March 23, the Commission says it is in no doubt that SriLankan Airlines falls within the ambit of the RTI Act. “A contrary finding would disturb an effective and smooth working system as contemplated by the RTI Act, bringing about uncertainty, friction and confusion,” it holds.
The Commission also states that the “cure and remedy” proposed by the RTI Act must not be rendered redundant. Neither must the legislative intent in the Act’s avowed purpose to “foster a culture of transparency and accountability in Public Authorities” be defeated.
In its view, the Commission maintains, it would be an anathema to give a ruling that places the national carrier as lying outside the definition of a “Public Authority” as contemplated in the RTI Act.
“This would give rise to the possibility that, not just the respondent national carrier, but a vast number of other companies may see fit to purportedly claim the benefit of that same exemption and render themselves outside the reach of the RTI Act, consequently resulting in Section 43 (e) of the said Act being reduced to a futility,” it affirms.
SriLankan Airlines may now seek redress against the decision in the Court of Appeal. This will require further expenditure of public funds in the struggling national carrier’s quest to withhold information on salaries, allowances and benefits of the CEO, Head of Human Resources and Chief Commercial Officer; information connected to its aircraft deal with Pakistan International Airlines; information on the cancellation of the Airbus A350 order; and information on the cost of personal flying training borne by Sri Lankan for the CEO.
The application for such information was first filed under the RTI Act in June 2017 by the Airline Pilots’ Guild of Sri Lanka (APGSL). The Guild appealed against its rejection to the RTI Commission in September 2017. The appellant, APGSL, filed written submissions in December 2017 and in January and February this year. The respondent, SriLankan Airlines, filed its submissions in January and February this year.
In the course of the hearings, SriLankan took up a preliminary objection that it was not a company incorporated under the Companies Act No 7 of 2007 and, therefore, not a “public authority” as defined in Section 43 (e) of the RTI Act.
The RTI Act defines a company as one incorporated under the Companies Act “in which the State, or a public corporation or the State and a public corporation together hold twenty five per centum or more of the shares or otherwise has a controlling interest”.
Sri Lankan Airlines submitted that it was incorporated as Air Lanka in 1979 under the Companies Ordinance. It changed its name to Sri Lankan Airlines in 1999 under the Companies Act No 17 of 1982. It then re-registered under the Companies Act No 7 of 2007 as required by the Act.
SriLankan maintained that, since it was not “incorporated” under the 2007 Act but merely reregistered as an existing company, the definition in Section 43 (e) of the RTI Act did not apply to it. But SriLankan did not dispute the fact that it was an entity owned by the Government of Sri Lanka.
In its decision, the RTI Commission observes that the certificate of incorporation of SriLankan Airlines as a limited company under the Companies Act of 2007 describes it as an “existing company” which is registered as a limited company “as if incorporated” under the Act.
Even if a distinction were to be drawn between a company newly incorporated under the 2007 Act or an “an existing company” incorporated under previous legislation, that is an artificial distinction that takes on colour for the limited purposes of regulating the regime under the 2007 Act at the precise point of that Act coming into force, rather than as a distinction that is meant to continue in perpetuity.
The carrier’s objection that the RTI Act does not apply to it was raised after more than one year of SriLankan Airlines acting in compliance with the said Act, including making the appointment of an Information Officer and a Designated Officer, the Commission points out.
Further, Sri Lankan Airlines has affirmed on record that it is incorporated under the Companies Act (2007) in its official documentation as well as in the legal notice available on its website.