Little access to information

Phyllis Thomas, Enterprise Editor

In trying to get the Ministry of National Security to release its grip on official documents requested under the Access to Information (ATI) Act, The Gleaner has turned over the matters to its lawyers to pursue them through the Appeals Tribunal.

Nearly a decade after the ATI Act was passed, claiming to give the public a general right of access to official documents, The Gleaner, like Jamaicans seeking information by means of the ATI, feels like a mother dealing with a painful and stubborn labour. Several requests for official documents being held by ministries and statutory organisations have been made using the ATI, as we push to realise our commitment to the public to be their eyes and ears, and to keep them informed.

Several events have occurred since the onset of this dreadful labour - Hurricane Gustav, Trafigura, Dudus/Manatt ... Wiki-Leaks ... and we are still waiting.

The main culprit is the Ministry of National Security, whose blatant disregard for the law is consistent. This ministry has been ignoring requests made back to 2009 and beyond. In the case of one of these requests, the ministry said that the matter was under investigation. We are aware, however, that the investigations were complete and the findings handed over to the responsible authority. That request was made on December 29, 2009.

Another outstanding request was made on June 30, 2010. On August 25, 2010, the responsible officer in the ministry wrote to us expressing regrets for not responding within the time stipulated by the act. The officer said that the ministry was "trying to speed up the process so that the relevant documents can be deli-vered early in September". That was supposed to be September 2010.

The ATI Act recognises the right to appeal with respect to, "refusal of a grant of access; the grant of access to only some of the documents requested; deferral of the grant of access ... ."

public right

An article posted on the website of the Ministry of the Finance and the Public Service said "The ATI Act legitimises the publics' right to access official documents created and maintained by all government authorities. It is one of the boldest initiatives adopted by the Jamaican Government to make government more transparent, publicly accountable and accessible to its populace, and has created an environment to encourage and foster public participation."

A piece of barefaced false-hood, given the behaviour of government authorities like the Ministry of National Security.

Breaching this law comes with penalties. There is a fine of a maximum of $500,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both, if the government official, "alters or defaces, blocks or erases, destroys or conceals an official document to which the public has a right of access, with the intention of preventing its disclosure".

The joint select committee appointed to review the ATI Act stated in its report, "It was brought to the committee's attention that there were guidelines as to how the various functions should be discharged by access officers, but they were not being followed. It was therefore proposed that a new provision be inserted in the act, which would provide for the issuing of a Code of Practice on Functions and Obligations under the act."

In the report which was tabled in the House on March 29 this year and in the Senate on April 1, the committee said that it was advised that the ATI Unit, after consultation with the responsible minister would issue a code of practice which would guide public authorities as to how they should discharge their duties in complying with the act.

In 2005, when The Gleaner faced difficulties securing ATI documents, an article with headline, 'Access to what?' was published.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.