Columns

Over five years back the then Government enacted one of the most vital pieces of legislation that was hailed both in Sri Lanka and internationally as filling a yawning gap in the country’s democratic system and governance. That was the peoples’ right to know, to ask questions about the functioning of government and its institutions, and the conduct of those elected to office and parliament.

That was a new freedom granted to the people who are said to be sovereign and in whose name governments hold power temporarily and MPs called representatives of the people are elected for a specified period.

That legislation was the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2016 which was incorporated into the Constitution through the 19th Amendment (19A) to the 1978 Constitution and still remains a part of our law despite a basic change made to it in the 20th Amendment introduced by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration.

The RTI Act also applies to our parliamentarians. For instance the Code of Conduct for MPs that was passed by parliament during the previous administration, states with regard to the Register of Members’ Interests “provisions of the RTI Act shall apply to publication of any information contained in the register.”

That register should contain information disclosed by MPs in relation to their business relationships and financial interests including information of close family members in order to increase the public trust in members.

While the people now have the freedom to exercise their ‘right to know’, those against whom this law could apply search for ways and means– from prevarication to procrastination to obfuscation—to ignore the peoples’ right to know or resort to labyrinthine ways to avoid answering penetrating questions that would expose politicians and bureaucrats.

The RTI Act was one of the few pieces of legislation that survived when the Gotabaya Rajapaksa presidency neutered the 19 A. But the new Government made a crucial change. It abolished several independent commissions including the Constitutional Council that appointed the members of the RTI Commission and replaced it with a Parliamentary Council.

Though RTI was retained, to all intents and purposes the selection of nominees became politicised by passing on the responsibility to parliament instead of an independent appointing body. The five-member Parliamentary Council consists of the prime minister and his representative and Opposition leader and his/her representative and chaired by The Speaker.

So the Parliamentary Council not only nominates the members of the RTI Commission and submits the names to the President who makes the final decision which some might argue goes through political selections but MPs and their activities and conduct are not exempt from scrutiny under RTI. So is the parliamentary staff such as the Secretary-General and his assistant and others.

Those who have followed the work of the RTI commission will know that it has been able to compel various ministries and state institutions to reveal information demanded by the public and the commission has been able to squeeze responses to public questions from reluctant and recalcitrant bureaucrats who have ruled the roost prior to the RTI.

Since its inception, the commission has performed its tasks commendably and through its efforts made available to the public information that would hardly have seen the light of day had it not been for the RTI law and the commission’s indefatigable search for truth and its decisions that have prised open buried treasure troves of information.

Not that the commission has always been successful in serving the public interest. But what the RTI law and its commission have done is to shine the light on many dark places and thereby enthused the public to take an interest in excavating some of those areas that politicians and their lackeys and bureaucrats serving them would like to keep permanently buried like the LTTE gold that two officials working for two ministers went in search of recently.

If parliament constitutes of representatives of the people, then parliament and its functionaries should answer queries of the people. It is bad enough when ministers avoid answering written and oral questions demanding long periods of time to get round to them, if at all they do., Or they stay away from sittings as a convenient escape route, and are allowed to get away with it without proper chastisement.

Even functionaries think they could do the same. Earlier this year this newspaper sought under RTI, the educational qualifications of the 225 MPs. Replying to this the assistant secretary-general of parliament and information officer called Tikiri Jayatilleke sent a ludicrous answer that would have normally raised gales of laughter that would have been heard on the other side of Diyawanna Oya, had it not been a serious issue. Space does not permit me to retell this incident in detail. Suffice it to ask, for now, whoever wrote that gibberish. No wonder parliament fights shy of disclosing educational qualifications.

(Neville de Silva is a veteran Sri Lankan journalist who was Assistant Editor of the Hong Kong Standard and worked for Gemini News Service in London. Later he was Deputy Chief-of-Mission in Bangkok and Deputy High Commissioner in London)