Editorial

The Right to Information (RTI) Act has been a rare victory for Sri Lankans, who are more often mutely subjected to bad laws passed upon them by governments indifferent to their collective woes. The RTI Act was rated third in the global ranking of ‘sunshine laws’ across the world when it was unanimously passed in Parliament in 2016 after a 14-year struggle by media bodies and civil society.

Since then, the high point of the law has been its use by citizens from remote villages and towns to the capital, including politicians in the Opposition as well as scores of police officers and public servants who have themselves resorted to the RTI Act to remedy their grievances. An independent Right to Information (RTI) Commission comprising nominees of professional and civil society bodies recommended by the Constitutional Council and appointed by the President received high public praise for hundreds of pro-disclosure decisions. These directives were most often obeyed by the Presidential Secretariat, the Cabinet Office and ministries downwards, visibly impacting an entrenched ‘secrecy culture’.

Only a few were challenged in the appellate courts. Many rulings resulted in concrete changes in state practice, including the National Archives reactivating an earlier lethargic legal obligation that the Presidential Secretariat must forward reports of Commissions of Inquiry and proactive publication of fair criteria to welfare beneficiaries, the nation’s poor.

Internationally, UNESCO presented the Sri Lanka RTI Commission as a global case study to the UN High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development in 2020, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) called upon the government to support the Commission as an ‘outstanding example of transparency’ in a 2023 Governance Diagnostic Report.

On its part, the Sri Lankan judiciary has also recognised the value of RTI, upholding the RTI Act over a 1970s law on the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities in one instance and, in another, enforcing an RTI Commission ruling against the country’s largest supplier of domestic cooking gas. The Court has gone so far as to say that the RTI Act “has transformed the power balance between the State and the citizen; earlier, it was the State which watched every act of the citizen; now the citizen has been conferred the power to watch the State.”

In yet another affirmation of a Commission decision to release information on the use of state funds by a state bank, the Court equated the citizen’s right to get details of money spent by a public authority to the equal “right of a co-owner over every square inch of that land.” These positive judicial pronouncements impact beyond individual cases.

Yet, there are problems plaguing Sri Lanka’s RTI. Initially, the nodal agency in the RTI Act, namely the Ministry of Media, had committed enthusiasts who trained public servants in the spirit and the letter of the RTI Act. The Media Minister, who presented this path-breaking Act to Parliament, had a keen interest in its proper implementation; this is perhaps why he publicly expressed concern in the House last week on the RTI Commission being starved of staff support.

However, the nodal agency was largely nonfunctional from 2019, making the burden greater on the RTI Commission, which had also been stripped of an earlier independent line item in the national Budget by that time. The RTI Commission had to filter its staff and financial support requests through an uninterested line ministry, which is itself a public authority under the RTI Act. This was a far-from-ideal status quo for an ‘independent’ Commission.

Still, Sri Lanka remains the best example of a functioning RTI law across South Asia. But the far-reaching impact of the RTI Act, not only on the Government but also on high corporate and professional bodies, has created powerful enemies who would like to see its downfall.

Aggravating this situation, a few ventilate personal vendettas over social media, use RTI as a ‘business,’ or harass public servants by asking how many cups of tea they drink for the day. Sri Lanka does not impose penalties on ‘vexatious RTI litigants’ unlike elsewhere, but the call for such a restriction is not far off. More seriously, elements in this Government are showing nervousness over this show of ‘people’s power,’ seeing a conspiracy when RTIs are directed at them.

A people’s government cannot be seen to be suffocating a people-friendly law. If they are a truly people’s government, then they must strengthen an independent and vibrant RTI Commission and an RTI Act, which has enabled countless citizens to ‘unlock’ official information and helped them immensely in their daily lives.

Picking the right City Father and City Mother

Nominations for local government elections are now in full swing with a date not yet fixed for the elections, but expected within the next two months.

The fact that nominations had to be freshly called two years after their last scheduled date because many prospective candidates at the time had either passed away, left the country or crossed over to other political parties speaks volumes for their fitness for the job, either physically or politically, to serve the public as well as the vagaries of their political loyalties.

The Supreme Court held that the franchise of the Sri Lanka voter had been deprived and ordered the holding of elections “as early as possible.” The Court, going into the amendments that were passed by Parliament recently, however, held by majority decision that the bill required a two-thirds majority as certain provisions infringed on the Constitution. A dissenting judge held that the purpose of the amendments was “balanced” by allowing 487,617 new voters becoming entitled to vote due to the postponed elections, and therefore, “as a whole,” did not violate the Basic Law. The Government was able to pass the bill with a two-thirds majority.

More than 80,000 candidates are expected to file their nomination papers to fill some 8,000 seats in 341 local councils throughout the country. Rs. 10 billion has already been allocated. There is a surge in women candidates and in political parties scouting for ‘educated’ candidates, but ratepayers increasingly complain they don’t know their councillor even after an election—unlike earlier.

There is a heavy burden upon political parties to pick the correct candidates. How much due diligence is being adopted in the selection process is the question. These will then be the elected representatives entrusted with serving the people their daily needs in councils largely reeking with corruption and inefficiency.