News
RTIC warns of grave impact of Audit Bill on evolving RTI regime
View(s):Sri Lanka’s Right to Information Commission (RTIC) cautioned on Friday (June 1) that the proposed Audit Act tabled before Parliament prohibiting Right to Information requests in respect of ‘any information’ in the custody of several officials, including even non-audit officials, may impact negatively on the country’s embryonic RTI regime.
Expressing particular concern in regard to clause 9 (1) (b) of the Audit Bill as it stands currently, the RTIC has noted further that it requires both that the information be placed before Parliament and that prior consent be given in writing of the person or institution providing the information, in order for the information to be released.
The only exceptions are when information is released by request of Parliament or an order of court.
Officials so protected from requests for information include not only members of the Audit Service Commission, any person appointed to any office under the Audit Act or a qualified auditor engaged by the Auditor General but also ‘any other person assisting any such person for the purpose of carrying out the provisions’ under the Act.’ Imposing wide and generalized prohibitions of this nature may have a ‘chilling effect’ on an evolving RTI regime and undermine the public right to know, the RTIC has said.
Clause 9 (2) provides meanwhile 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.’
Imposing of wide prohibitions without assessment as to whether that is necessary in a democratic society, without due regard if grave prejudice is caused and without consideration of the public interest, taken together with the failure to specify a time period in regard to potential presentation of audit reports before Parliament, give rise to serious concerns, the RTIC has observed.
Further, it has added that the criminalization of information disclosure on the basis that it offends generalized prohibitions on information release is contrary to the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. These raise legitimate questions as to whether exclusive domains of privilege will be created for those offices.
Pointing out that this departs from the fundamental principles of RTI, the RTIC has reminded that the RTI Act does not place specific categories or classes of documents or the functioning of specific offices beyond the reach of information requesters. Rather, the Act gives effect to the principle of maximum disclosure while protecting specific interests (national security, privacy, law and order etc). These interests, in turn, are subject to an overriding public interest.
Shielding ‘advantaged’ offices and individuals in a manner contrary to the spirit of RTI will dilute the victories gained for Sri Lankans through the enactment of a globally recognized law and discourage the largely positive tendencies evidenced so far by Public Authorities in dismantling a decades-old culture of secrecy and denial of legitimate information, the RTIC has warned.