Sri Lanka has a long and questionable history of the authorities failing to uphold or refraining from upholding the public’s fundamental rights, which continues to blunt the trust that the public has kept in the governing and public administrative systems. Although Sri Lanka is a democracy where the public’s interests should be the foremost priority, it appears that the interests of the public have been subdued by those of the political and public authorities.

This situation became more apparent during the past year, when a number of incidents, which amounted to a violation of the public’s fundamental rights, transpired in the context of the aragalaya (the people’s movement to overthrow the then Government led by former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa) which sought to depose the former Government due to the economic crisis that broke out during its tenure. One demand that was at the centre of the aragalaya’s demands was that a more responsible, accountable and a transparent Government be established following the resignation of the former Government. However, despite various positive developments such as legal and institutional reforms, it appears that the country has a very long way to go in order to achieve responsibility, accountability and transparency related aspects in various crucial affairs of the country.

The public’s right to information, which has been guaranteed under the Fundamental Rights Chapter in the Constitution, is such an area. Despite that right being a Constitutionally guaranteed one and despite Sri Lanka having set up an independent Commission to protect that right through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, No. 12 of 2016, the actual benefits of the Act seems to have been limited due to practical challenges faced by the enforcement of the same.

As was clearly seen during the past few years, there is a trend of public authorities and the law enforcement and armed forces defying lawful RTI requests which are in accordance with the Act. The Parliament’s reluctance in revealing the names of Members of Parliament who have and have not submitted their assets and liabilities declarations, the Litro Gas’s reluctance in revealing the salaries of certain top-most officials, and the Police’s reluctance in revealing information about tear gas that was used during the aragalaya period, are merely a few examples. The newest such failure of unwillingness to respond to a RTI request was reported from the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) recently. This was when the SLAF had claimed that it did not receive two consecutive RTI requests which sought to obtain information on the number of times Rajapaksa had travelled by SLAF aircrafts from the first week of April to 15 July, 2022, the relevant dates on which he travelled, the places of departure and destination, the number of persons who accompanied him, the total cost incurred for each trip, how the trips were approved, and who paid the relevant fees, although the RTI Commission had observed that those requests had been sent to the SLAF's relevant electronic mail address. 

In some of the aforementioned cases and in many other such cases, the authorities attempted to use grounds such the requested information being an official’s personal information, and information being of national security related interests, and information not being available, while the non-receipt of RTI requests has on many occasions been cited as the reason for not responding to such requests. While some of these concerns may be true, it is an undeniable fact that there is a severe lethargy or unwillingness on the part of public authorities when it comes to revealing information, even if the provision of such information is clearly not a threat to any party and is not related to any ongoing or future activity. In addition, certain public authorities have not adequately cooperated with the RTI Commission and its hearings, while some went beyond to challenge the RTI Commission’s role and powers.

One of the most concerning aspects of this situation, which has been underscored by the RTI Commission, is the fact that some of the information requested through the RTI Act is in fact information that should ideally be proactively disclosed to the public by public authorities. However, times are such that the public has had to request, appeal and struggle in the process of getting information in order to get information about public authorities, public servants and public representatives who are maintained by the public, to serve the public.

Sri Lanka needs to understand that foreign funds and debt restructuring alone will not help the nation to recover economically and heal. Debt restructuring will only bring short term relief. For Sri Lanka to recover and stabilise, become the country where youth wish to live in, more needs to be done. The Right to Information Act can be used to be transparent and build confidence in our governance system not only for our citizens but for potential investors and trade partners.