Watchdogs: Gov2019t Spent $196 Keeping Secrets For Every $1 Spent Declassifying Documents (ProPublica)
Watchdogs: Gov2019t Spent $196 Keeping Secrets For Every $1 Spent Declassifying Documents (ProPublica)
from Toby Mendel at The Centre for Law and Democracy: Pakistan – Note on the draft Right to Information Law
Image via Wikipedia
The Centre for Law and Democracy
e Centre for Law and Democracy
Pakistan
Note on the draft Right to Information Law
Pakistan adopted a Freedom of Information Ordinance in 2002 which has remained in effect since then. In April 2010, the Constitution of Pakistan was amended to provide for a right to information. The Ordinance lacks legitimacy not only because of its pedigree (i.e. not having been adopted by a democratically elected legislature) but also because it falls well short of international and now constitutional guarantees of the right to information.
There have, as a result, been various attempts to introduce new legislation on the right to information in Pakistan. A Freedom of Information Bill was promulgated around June 2008. More recently, in July 2010, a draft Right to Information Law (draft Law) was moved in the National Assembly of Pakistan by Sherry Rehman.
Overall, the draft Law represents an important improvement over the existing Ordinance and, if passed, would go a long way to bring Pakistan into line with international and constitutional standards in this area. At the same time, there are still areas where the draft could still be improved. This Note provides a brief overview of these areas for improvement.
General
The draft Law contains a few areas of repetition and overlap, as well as a few where issues are dealt with throughout the law, rather than in one place, creating the potential for confusion. Some of this is due to including certain definitions in section 2 which really deal with substantive issues. Thus, section 2(b) describes the various grounds for making a complaint, but these are repeated in section 19, on complaints.
More importantly, the regime of exceptions is spread confusingly among the definitions (section 2(f)), section 8 and sections 15-18. There is a degree of repetition in these provisions. For example, national security is protected in section 2(f)(vi)(vi) and again in section 8(b), privacy is protected in section 8(c) and section 17, and law enforcement is protected in section 2(f)(vi)(ii) and section 16. These double definitions, which are phrased differently, clearly create potential for confusion.
Further potential for confusion is introduced regarding the application of exceptions. Section 2(b)(vi) refers to complaints based on a failure to provide information not falling within the ambit of sections 2(f) and 8 (but not sections 15-18), section 7 refers to all records being public except those covered by section 8 (but not sections 2(f) or 15-18), section 13 refers to the exceptions “elsewhere in this Act as Section 2(f) or Section 8”, and section 14 refers simply to the lack of an obligation to provide exempt information.
Scope
The draft Law includes a clear statement of the right of access, in section 3, along with strong rules on interpretation. Apart from rather general statements in the Preamble about good governance and accountability, however, it lacks any detailed references to the underlying goals the law seeks to achieve.
The scope of information covered by the law is defined in section 2(f). The definition starts out very broadly, as any record held by a public authority, regardless of form. It would be preferable for the definition to refer to ‘information’, as opposed to records, since this could be read as suggesting that the right of access only extends to specific documents, as opposed to the information contained in them.
Sub-sections 2(i)-(v) provide a list of types of documents that are covered (such as property transactions, the grant of licences and concessions, and appointments and promotions). Generally, such lists are not helpful as they tend to be used to narrow rather than broaden the scope of the definition (on the basis that items not listed are not intended to be covered).
Even more serious is sub-section 2(f)(vi), which starts by referring to information “in which members of the public may have a legitimate interest”. This is not appropriate. The right of access should apply to all information held by public bodies. Sub-section 2(f)(vi) goes on to list a number of exceptions to the right of access. This type of rule has no place as part of the definition of information. In any case, as noted above, the exceptions should all be brought together in one place for clarity and to avoid repetition. There are some serious problems with the specific nature of these exceptions, which are dealt with below, under Exceptions.
The definition of public authorities covered in section 2(g) is broad, covering the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, as well as bodies owned, funded or controlled by government, or fulfilling a public function.
Pursuant to section 12, citizens or residents may make requests for information. Better practice laws apply to everyone.
Duty to Publish
The main provision on the duty to publish is section 5, which lists some seven categories of information subject to proactive publication. The list of categories is respectable, but more could be done to extend it, in particular in relation to financial and budget information, as well as information on the recipients of concessions and other public benefits (section 4(1)(b) of the Indian Right to Information Act 2005 provides a good example of a more extensive rule on proactive publication).
Section 5(1) includes an odd provision, which states that no information already published on a public authority’s official website shall be covered by the section 5 rules, which require information to be made available for inspection and copying, as well as on the website. This would appear to give public authorities the opportunity to avoid these wider obligations simply by getting information up quickly on their websites.
Another shortcoming with the regime for proactive publication is that it has proven impractical in other countries to expect public authorities to make all of this information available within a few months or even years. This leads to a situation where public authorities are, almost from the very outset, operating in breach of the law. A system for levering up the amount of information to be provided over time can help address this problem.
Procedures
Requests must be placed with the ‘designated official’ (i.e. dedicated information officer), and must be accompanied by the requisite fee and ‘necessary particulars’, in accordance with a form that may be prescribed by the government (see section 10 and 12). It would be preferable to set out in the main legislation the information that requesters must provide, which should be as limited as possible. The draft Law provides that neither any reasons provided by a citizen nor an official’s belief as to the reasons, may be taken into account. It would be preferable, however, to add that reasons may not be asked of a requester.
Where a request relates to information which is either held by another public authority or relates more closely to the work of another authority, the request shall be transferred to that authority, within fourteen days (section 12(4)). It would be preferable for transfers to be allowed only where the original authority does not hold the information (while leaving it free to consult with other authorities should it deem this necessary). Also, fourteen days is far too long to effect such a transfer (this normally has implications in terms of the overall timeline for responding). Fourteen days is also stipulated for responding to requests (section 13(1)), which is an appropriate time limit.
The part of Section 13 dealing with refusals of requests is confusing, prescribing various different scenarios in different places, namely under 13(2)(b), 13(2)(c), and 13(3). It is also not clear what a refusal notice must contain.
The draft Law does not provide for requesters to stipulate the form in which they would like to receive the information (such as inspection of the documents, an electronic copy, a photocopy). The draft Law simply provides that requesters may be required to pay a fee and that rules on fees may be set by regulation (sections 12(1) and 27(2)(a)), although section 3(ii)(ii) does provide very generally for access to be provided at the lowest reasonable cost. It would be preferable for the primary legislation to set out at least guiding rules on fees, such as that no fee may be levied simply for making a request, that the fee may not exceed the actual costs of duplicating and sending the information, if any, and that waivers will be put in place, for example for poorer requesters or public interest requests.
Exceptions
As noted above, the exceptions are spread out mainly in three parts of the draft Law, section 2(f)(vi), section 8 and sections 15-18. From a systemic perspective, many of the exceptions do not include a harm test, instead placing whole categories of information off-bounds. There are three public interest overrides. One, in section 2(f)(vi)(v), renders secret any information the disclosure of which would be “detrimental to public interest”, which section 2(f)(vi)(vii) defines as public safety and public security only. The second, in section 2(f)(vi)(viii) purports to relate to section 2(f)(vi)(vii), and provides that the exceptions therein do not apply if disclosure of the information is in the overall public interest (this does not actually make sense, since that section does not contain any exception). The third, in section 8(2), provides that the exceptions in section 8(1) do not apply where disclosure of the information is in the overall public interest. There does not appear to be any public interest override for sections 15-18.
The negative override in section 2(f)(vi)(v) is unfortunate and runs against international standards and better practice, even though it is relatively constrained. It may be noted that section 8(f)(vi) already provides protection for public safety, so this override is not necessary. Otherwise, it would be preferable for one public interest override to apply to all of the exceptions.
In terms of the specific exceptions, problematical provisions include the following:
-
Section 2(f)(vi)(i): protects “all internal working documents”. This does not provide for a harm test or even any identifiable interest to be protected (such as the free and frank provision of advice or the success of a policy). Furthermore, it is time limited until after a decision has been taken and implemented, but in other laws which include this sort of exception, the information becomes public as soon as the decision is taken.
-
Section 2(f)(vi)(ii): protects all investigative reports for the prevention and detection of crime, or the collection of taxes, as well as any information received during an investigation. This does not include a harm test.
-
Section 2(f)(vi)(iii): protects all scientific research which could expose a public authority to ‘disadvantage’. While this is a harm test, it is exceptionally broad.
-
Section 2(f)(vi)(vi): protects information relating to national security. This does not include a harm test.
-
Section 8(a): protects all banking accounts of customers. This is mostly legitimate, but could be abused and is already covered by the privacy exception(s), so is unnecessary.
-
Section 8(b): protects national security. This is subject to a harm test but the test is not clear. It applies if the threat to security can be demonstrated. A better approach would be to apply the exception only where an actual threat of harm to security is demonstrated.
-
Section 8(c): protects privacy. This exception lacks a harm test. While harm is to some extent implicit in the idea of privacy, it would still be useful to add a qualifier such as “disclosure would represent an unwarranted invasion of privacy”.
-
Section 16(c): protects the identity of persons named in law enforcement records. This exception lacks a harm test and would cover a lot of people who may be named without creating harm (unlike the exception in section 2(f)(vi)(ii)(c), which only applies to confidential sources).
The draft Law also fails to protect certain interests that do need protection, including:
-
legally privileged information or solicitor-client privilege; and
-
sensitive commercial information of private third parties.
Oversight
The draft Law provides for an internal appeal to the head of a public authority and from there to the Mohtasib (ombudsman) or, in some cases, the Federal Tax Ombudsman (section 19). The grounds for an internal appeal listed in section 19 include a failure to provide the information in time or a refusal to disclose information. To these should be added a failure to provide proper notice upon refusing access, charging excessive fees and failing to provide information in the form requested.
A complaint to the Mohtasib is allowed when the head of the public authority fails to provide the requested information, within the “prescribed time”. This establishes an even narrower set of reasons for appeal. Furthermore, the law fails to specify any prescribed time limit for internal appeals. The power to issue rules for internal appeals is not stated explicitly in the section on regulations (section 27), although it would fall within the residual rule-making power. In any case, it is better to stipulate this in the primary legislation.
An appeal to an ombuds-type office, like the Mohtasib, is useful, but experience in other countries shows that an appeal to a body with binding decision-making power is far more effective. In this case, the law should specify exactly how decisions of the oversight body will be rendered legally binding.
Finally, the Mohtasib may impose a fine on those lodging malicious, frivolous or vexatious complaints. While it is not necessarily inappropriate to allow such complaints to be rejected on a summary basis, to avoid wasting resources, the power to fine may exert a chilling effect on those seeking to lodge legitimate complaints. This is not a power that has been found to be necessary in other countries.
Sanctions and Protections
The law makes it an offence to destroy a record which is the subject of a request or complaint with the intention of denying access, to obstruct access to a record, to interfere with the work of the monitoring body, to falsify information or, without reasonable excuse, to fail to provide access to a record (section 21). All but the last of these may attract a prison sentence of up to two years, although only the first one specifically includes a mala fides intention.
The draft Law includes strong positive protections, both for good faith disclosures under the law, and for whistleblowing.
Promotional Measures
The draft Law includes few promotional measures. Public authorities are required to appoint information officers (section 10). The draft Law also proposes a system for record management, in section 4, whereby the head of every public authority is required to maintain records properly and an “appropriate body” is tasked with setting guidelines in this area. It would be preferable if the “appropriate body” were identified in the law and if the standards it sets were to be formally binding, as opposed to just being guidelines.
The draft Law fails to identify a central body which is tasked with overall promotion of the right to information or with ensuring that efforts are undertaken to ensure that the public is aware of its rights under the law. There is also no requirement on public authorities to provide appropriate training for their staff. Finally, neither public authorities nor any central body is tasked with reporting on activities undertaken to implement the law, including in relation to the processing of requests.
|
Recommendations:
|
The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy
Music to Accompany Right to Know Week
Greetings from the west coast of Canada,
This request is sent to 154 groups and people from around the world who are interested in Freedom of Information.
Right To Know Week, the week to raise awareness about freedom of information, is approaching (Sept 28 to Oct 2). But to celebrate and raise awareness about freedom of information we need music!
Please take a minute or so to think of songs & music that usher in something of the spirit of freedom of information. Suggestions can be submitted here.
Songs will be posted at www.opengovernmentrecords.net as they come in so that they can be used in Right to Know week celebrations.
Mark Weiler
Burnaby, BC
Canada
Assessing the Health of FOIA After 2000 through the Lens of the National Security Archive and Federal Government Audits [2009-18] (PDF)
Assessing the Health of FOIA After 2000 through the Lens of the National Security Archive and Federal Government Audits [2009-18] Melissa Guy and Melanie Oberlin (pdf)
Law Library Journal
Law Library Journal 101, no. 3
UK Private companies to be subject to FoI law
Image via Wikipedia
Private companies to be subject to FoI law
14 May 2009 12:11
The Freedom of Information Act will be extended to companies in the private sector doing work for the government, Justice Minister Michael Wills says
The government is to extend the Freedom of Information Act, which allows citizens to request information on public-sector activity, to cover private-sector companies on government contracts.
Justice Minister Michael Wills told the audience at a data-protection event in London on Wednesday that the government had been consulting on the extension of the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) and would announce the results in the near future.
“We are going to announce the results [of the consultation] soon,” said Wills, in response to a question about third-party government contractors. “There is going to be an extension.” Currently, the law only applies to public authorities. …
US Federal Government Still Viewed as Secretive; Public Supports President’s Directive on Transparency
Since 2006, the percentage of adults who believe the federal government to be somewhat or very secretive has grown steadily; from 62 percent in 2006 to 74 percent in 2008. The latest survey finds 73 percent characterizing federal government as secretive. This mood is perhaps buoyed by the nearly eight in 10 adults who think President Obama’s Freedom of Information directive calling for a presumption of disclosure is the right thing to do. “Trust in government has been on the decline for some time in Federal Government Still Viewed as Secretive; Public Supports President’s Directive on Transparency
By: PR Newswire
Mar. 13, 2009 07:00 AM
Illinois Gov. Quinn orders better response to FOIA requests
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn speaks to the media – Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Illinois Gov. Quinn orders better response to FOIA requests
GateHouse News Service
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. —
Gov. Pat Quinn told state agency directors and state lawyers Wednesday to “take all steps necessary to make information as accessible as possible” and better comply with the Freedom of Information Act.
Quinn spokesman Bob Reed said the directive is intended to let state workers know they “should have a pro-disclosure attitude toward FOIA.”
The purpose of the act is to provide members of the public access to government records. Certain types of information, such as medical files and security information, are exempt from the act.
A common criticism is that state agencies often deny requests for information based on broad interpretations of these exemptions.
In his memo, Quinn ordered FOIA requests to be considered “in favor of disclosure” instead of secrecy.
“In particular, FOIA requests shall be complied with in full conformity with both the letter and spirit of FOIA, and no decision to withhold information sought in a FOIA request shall be made to avoid embarrassment or for any speculative or other improper purpose,” he wrote.
Britain Refuses To Publish Cabinet Record Of Iraq War Decision
Straw appears at a press conference with United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. – Image via Wikipedia
February 25, 2009
Britain Refuses To Publish Cabinet Record Of Iraq War Decision
(RFE/RL) — The British government says it has vetoed publication of minutes from ministerial discussions about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw used the justification of “exceptional circumstances” to prevent publication of the cabinet records under the Freedom of Information Act.
In doing so, Straw overthrew a ruling by the British Information Tribunal, which had ordered the government to make available the records in the public interest.
Some lawmakers greeted his announcement with cries of “shame!”
Straw told the House of Commons that his decision to use the veto was motivated by his desire to avoid weakening the cabinet style of government, which he described as an integral part of British democracy.
“In short, the damage that disclosure of the minutes in this instance would do would far outweigh any corresponding public interest in their disclosure,” Straw said.
He said that a key feature of the cabinet style of government is that it provides a space for thought and debate in private, and that advantage of candor would be lost if ministers knew their deliberations could be made public at any time.
Normally in Britain, cabinet papers are kept closed for 30 years.
the Wobbing Europe ‘wobsite’
Wobbing Europe: Freedom of Information for good stories
Wobbing.eu aims to inspire and support journalists to use their right of freedom of information as a journalistic tool.
Wobbing.eu aims to build a network, where journalists who use freedom of information legislation can meet and exchange experiences.
Wobbing.eu aims to watch developments of freedom of information legislation in order to further stronger legislation useful for journalists.
Wobbing is a verb, it is Dutch journalist’s slang expression for Freedom of Information or Access to Documents legislation. It derives from the name of the Dutch and Flemish laws: Wet van Openbaarheid van Bestuur, which means Law about the Openness of the Administration.
Wobbing.eu is a trademark-protected name in the Benelux.
The Belgian Pascal Decroos Fund runs Wobbing Europe. The Pascal Decroos Fund is an independent Belgian-Flemish foundation working for special journalism and funded by the Flemish Government. It provides grants to journalists for investigative and special research projects, in print and audio-visual media in Dutch language in Belgium.
Pascal Decroos was a special journalist with special ideas. He was born in Ostend (Belgium) on 20 April 1964 and died in Brussels (Belgium) on 2 December 1997. Pascal Decroos is the exponent of a new generation of journalists. Someone with a passion for journalism and committed to the case of the weaker in our society. In the course of his professional career, Pascal Decroos earns himself the reputation of being a critical, inventive television journalist. His creed is: do not let yourself be carried along the stream of superficial news, but submerge. Do not content yourself with drawing the obvious conclusion, but investigate and probe until you find the truth.
Wobbing Europe, Editor Brigitte Alfter
The Pascal Decroos Fund for Investigative Journalism, Director Ides Debruyne
Rozenweg 4b
B-1731 Zellik
Belgium
Tel +32 2 705 59 19
fax +32 2 705 59 29
e-mail: ides.debruyne@fondspascaldecroos.org
www.wobbing.eu
Account number 422-8004971-11
IBAN: BE30 4228 0049 7111
KBC Bank NV BIC of SWIFT address: KREDBEBB
NATIONAAL NUMMER 463312580
http://www.wobbing.eu/
What US Gov Docs Would You Like to See Published?
Image via Wikipedia
What Gov Docs Would You Like to See Published?
[1]The 1996, yes, 1996 revision of the Freedom of Information Act, known as EFOIA [2], called for federal agencies to post frequently requested documents on their Web sites.
Guess what? Not every agency did it.
But now that transparency is hip, open government advocates have created a Web site [1] so folks can tell the government what documents they would like to see made public.
The site, Show us the Data [1], is a joint project of the OpenTheGovernment.org and the Center for Democracy and Technology. They only have a few votes, but the currently most wanted document is something we wrote about Tuesday [3] — reports of the Congressional Research Service. CRS reports would not fall under the 1996 EFOIA amendments, but open-records advocates have argued for years that the information should be public.
There aren’t a lot of votes on the site yet — but the site just opened yesterday.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d02c9022-a3cd-4e99-ac33-bdff553ca986)
Follow RTKNS
