Civil groups and access to government information law

There is a huge role for civil society in modern democratic government. Civil groups work to promote and protect the interests of (certain) citizens.

In doing so, civil organizations have also been at the forefront of battles for open government and freedom of information. This is well known, but less documented.

The World Bank Institute has, however, recently published a report titled, ‘Exploring the Role of Civil Society in the Formulation and Adoption of Access to Information Laws. The Cases of Bulgaria, India, Mexico, South Africa and the United Kingdom.’

The report, which is arguably insightful yet preliminary, is authored by Andrew Puddephat, who, funnily enough, was the Executive Director of the international non-government organization Article19 – perhaps the most active civil promoter of access to information in the world. Puddephat knows better than anyone the role civil organizations have played in promoting the right to know.

Victories and tribulations continue for FOI

Good news Australians!

Special Minister of State, John Faulkner, announced sweeping changes to the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act 1982 today at the Right to Know Conference. The Australian writes:

They represent the most significant overhaul of the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act since it began operation in 1982.

The proposals also include reducing the Archives Act’s 30-year rule for access to all documents to 20 years, bringing forward access to Cabinet notebooks from 50 to 30 years, introducing a single, clear pro-disclosure public interest test, and ensuring that factors such as “embarrassment to the government” or “causing confusion and unnecessary debate” can no longer be relied on to withhold access to documents.

Given the history of departmental resistance to the principles of freedom of information in Australia, such changes are certainly much needed.

However, the picture isn’t so rosy in the birthplace of the Australian political system–the United Kingdom. The BBC Open Secrets Blog, by Martin Rosenbaum, notes:

The decision of the Justice Secretary Jack Straw to use the “ministerial veto” to block the release of the minutes of key cabinet meetings in the run up to the Iraq war is a significant development for freedom of information in the UK.

Notably, Minister Faulkner has also moved to remove the ‘ministerial veto’ or ‘conclusive certificate’, which allows ministers the discretion of stamping information conclusively exempt from disclosure, from the Commonwealth Act.

It has taken a long time to see such reform in Australia. Lets hope reform doesn’t take as long in the UK, which only adopted freedom of information legislation in 2000.

Freedom of information and economic development

Marc Lourdes of the New Straits Times Online has recently written a column on ‘The case for freedom of information laws’ (especially in Malaysia, which currently lacks access legislation). It reads in part:

Prominent British lawyer Mark Stephens, speaking here last year, touched on the importance of “sunshine” laws such as a Freedom of Information Act.

He asserted that such laws reassure the people that those who rule them are not above reproach, their rights and interests are protected, and decisions are made fairly for the greater public interest and not just certain segments of society.

Openness and transparency, Stephens says, bring concrete benefits in terms of economic investment.

Indeed, a 2008 UNESCO conference aimed directly at forging the links between freedom of information and (sustainable) economic development.

FOI: good for government accountability and economic growth too!

Information about Iraq war won’t be released, but…

I’ve commented elsewhere about the importance of a freedom of information request in the UK for cabinet information relating to legal advice in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion.

After a win in the Information Tribunal, the case was either going to move further through the courts or government officials would use their power, which resides within the freedom of information act, to simply ‘veto’ the request or, in other words, conclusively determine the information as exempt from request.

The government vetoed the request, perhaps to little surprise.

An unfortunate move, yet the fallout hasn’t been entirely negative.

As it turns out, the Liberal Democrats are now proposing a removal of government veto powers within the freedom of information act. This is a positive development.

Coincidentally, the Australian Federal government is moving (if only slowly) to remove equivalent clauses from national freedom of information law.

Both proposals should be implemented on the basis that the ministerial power to veto a request runs counter to the philosophy of open and accountable government which the freedom of information act espouses.

Cayman Islands issues first FOI report

Freedom of information law became operational on 5th January 2009 in the Cayman Islands.

The Cayman government put a lot of preparation into getting ready for this date; a fact that is partly evident by the wealth of information available on the Cayman Freedom of Information Unit webpage.

Several days ago the first monthly report by the Freedom of Information Unit was released. According to the report, 117 requests for information were received during the period of the 5th to 31th of January. Of these requests 36 had been closed at the time of reporting, while 81 remained ‘in progress’.

The report goes on to note:

Of the thirty-six requests that were closed in this time period, twelve were granted in full, two were granted in part, and five were exempt in their entirety.

The list of exemptions utilised to withhold information relate to international affairs, law enforcement and commercial value.

On the face of it, these results neither prove or disprove anything. We might only concluded that the Cayman Islands is doing an exemplary job in attempting to implement and open and accessible freedom of information regime.

In contrast, many of the more dated freedom of information regimes were implemented in a cloud of secrecy (that remains to this day). Secrecy about the implementation of freedom of information seems, to me at least, a huge irony; which the Cayman Islands has thankfully avoided.

Nauru holds FOI workshop

The small island nation of Nauru is holding a workshop of freedom of information law. According to Radio New Zealand:

The four day workshop has been organised by the Nauru Government, with support from the United Nations Development Programme, the Pacific Islands Forum and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.

Mr Marcus Stephen, the President of Nauru, hinted that the host country is considering adopting freedom of information legislation in a bid to help combat corruption.

My question is this: will government-held governments relating to Australian aid given in exchange for the establishment of an offshore detention center on Nauru be open to request? Or would such access be denied on the basis that release would jeopardise national security and foreign relations?

Alas, I get ahead of myself…

A word from Nigeria

Advocacy groups have struggled in Nigeria to promote the adoption of national freedom of information law for a number of years. Officials have resisted and no such legislation has yet passed parliament.

For an outsider, it is sometimes difficult to know what is happening on the ground in Nigeria. Thankfully, the newspaper Punch has diligently covered events.

Recently, the newspaper featured an inspiring letter to the editor that puts the case for freedom of information in simple terms:

The era of keeping the people in darkness as to the inner workings of government is over. The government needs to be compelled to make its service to the nation open for public scrutiny. Some so-called official secrecy under which some people are hiding to cover their misdeeds must be removed. That is the essence of democracy, because sovereignty belongs to the people. You fail as a leader, no matter the economic structures you put in place, if the people for whom all your efforts are meant are not carried along adequately to appreciate what you are doing.

Guatemala learns from Mexican experience

Tony Mendel, a senior legal counsel for the advocacy organisation Article19, published a comparative legal survey of freedom of information laws around the world in 2003, with the help of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. The study presents 1) an overview of the international basis for the right to information; 2) a set of best practice standards; 3) an analyses of the laws of ten different countries; and 4) a comparative analysis of various laws/policies. Mendel ultimately found that Mexican freedom of information law was perhaps one of the best in the world:

Mexico has adopted a novel approach to the question of coverage, providing for a very detailed set of obligations for administrative bodies, and then placing the legislative and judicial branches of government under a generic obligation effetively to do their best to meet the same set of obligations… If this proves successful, which remains uncertain, it could prove a good model for other countries.

The extent to which freedom of information law in Mexico has succeeded is still uncertain. Anecdotally, I know there is debate within the country as to benefits of conducting freedom of information law in a way that facilitates access by the majority of the population, who have little access to the Internet and typically low financial capacity; or conducting the law with a high degree of technology and complexity.

Nevertheless, Mexico is setting an example for other countries. Freedominfo.org reports that Guatemalan officials have visited Mexico city on a mission to learn from Mexican experience with access rights. Amongst other things, the Guatemalan delegates were encouraged to create their own model in order to reflect their specific local conditions and needs. This is good advice. Australian freedom of information law has been plagued with many troubles that stem from an uncritical legal transplant of American law.

Guatemala is set to enact freedom of information law in March of this year.

Ghana looking to improve information dissemination

There are reportedly moves underway in Ghana:

to create a conducive information dissemination environment among stakeholders to ensure responsive governance…

The plan seems to be broad and inclusive, relating to media freedom and government responsiveness.

Nevertheless, an important element is the passing of a freedom of information act, which would allow individuals and organisations the ability to request and access government-held information. Ghana currently has a Freedom of Information Bill on the books and it seems as if this draft law might be passed soon.

I would emphasis that Ghana should implement the right to information for two primary reasons.

First, the Ghana constitution requires it: Article 21 (1) (f) of the 1992 Constitution provides for “Every Individual’s Right to Information subject to such qualifications and laws as are necessary in a democratic society”.

Second, Ghana has a proud history of leadership within Africa. Only four African nations (which does not count the fictitious law in Zimbabwe) currently have freedom of information law. Ghana should be the fifth.

China to increase soft power through information disemmination

Information is all about soft power. Those that monopolies and influentially disseminate information gain influence. Those that don’t loose out.

China knows this and is stepping up its efforts to increase its informational influence around the world, especially outside of Asia.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

China is about to embark on a multibillion dollar media expansion overseas, including the establishment of a 24-hour English language all-news channel modeled after CNN. These are only the most recent steps in a methodical strategy for Chinese state media to “go global” and make “the voice of China better heard in international affairs”…

As the WSJ article suggests, this move by Chinese officials raises some interesting questions. Can Chinese state-run broadcasters really turn into competitors for the likes of CNN and the BBC? Or could China’s quest for international audiences lead to a loosening of the tight censorship rules that continue to straightjacket its reporting?

In the end it is perhaps most likely that the channel will simply become a promotional tool for China, used across the English speaking world in order to bring Chinese soft power up to speed with its ever increasing level of hard power.