- SLPI analysis of reports submitted by public authorities under the RTI Act finds need to rectify numerous data-related inaccuracies and discrepancies
As guaranteed by the Constitution, every citizen shall have the right of access to any information as provided for by the law, being information which is required for the exercise or protection of a citizen’s right, held by a public authority. It is to give effect to this right that the Right to Information (RTI) Act, No. 12 of 2016 was introduced.
However, to what extent the public can truly obtain information about – and from – public authorities is a concern that has been highlighted by various challenges pertaining to the implementation of the RTI Act. While this discussion primarily revolves around requests for information under the said Act, responses provided by public authorities, and the RTI Commission’s functions in facilitating this process, as per a recent report, annual reports submitted by public authorities in accordance with the RTI Act should also receive attention as they need to be improved considerably.
The report, titled “A study of annual reports submitted by public authorities under section 10 of the RTI Act for the period 2019 to 2021”, was issued by the Sri Lanka Press Institute (SLPI) last week in Colombo. It was compiled by attorney-at-law Nethmi Jinadasa. For the report, a total of 1,128 reports received by the RTI Commission from 625 public authorities between 2019 and 2021 have been perused, and these annual reports as well as their contents have served as the basis for the study. Based on its findings, the report recommended that various aspects of annual reports submitted by public authorities should be improved, including the rectification of inaccuracies and discrepancies observed in these reports.
Annual reports submission
This study has been conducted through collecting, analysing, and drawing quantitative findings on selected criteria in the public authorities’ annual reports which are submitted to – and are available in – the RTI Commission, while information collected from various public authorities’ annual reports have also been used to draw up quantitative findings on the number of information requests as well as appeals received from citizens, and responses provided by public authorities and the RTI Commission, among others. For the purpose of the study, 2019 to 2021 has been considered as the review period, leaving out the first two years of annual reports, assuming potential oversights and errors therein at the commencement of annual reporting.
The report analysed the responsiveness of public authorities under three administration levels. The Presidential Secretariat, the Prime Minister’s Office, Parliament, the Office of the Cabinet of Ministers, national ministries, national departments, independent commissions, universities, banks, and other public authorities came under the “National” level. Governors’ offices, Governors’ secretariats, council secretariats, provincial ministries, provincial departments, chief ministries, chief secretariats, municipal councils, urban councils, pradeshiya sabhas, and zonal offices came under the “Provincial and Local Government (LG)” level. In addition, district secretariats and divisional secretariats were categorised under the “District and Divisional” level.
The report said that as per the annual reports (performance reports) of the RTI Commission for the years 2020 and 2021, the number of public authorities in the State sector has been estimated to be 1,579. However, the RTI Commission has received annual reports from only 400 public authorities in 2019, 280 public authorities in 2020, and 345 public authorities in 2021. However, the study has not been able to carry out a comparative analysis of public authorities’ compliance in the submission of annual reports to the RTI Commission due to the absence of a directory of total public authorities in Sri Lanka.
“The annual reports submission to the RTI Commission is alarming, as over 74% of public authorities in 2019, 82% in 2020, and 78% in 2021 have failed to submit annual reports despite having one full year to submit the annual reports relating to the preceding year. It should be noted that the percentage of non-compliance will increase when all State public authorities are counted in,” the report said, adding that some annual reports had furnished limited data in the absence of a standardised format, whereas reports submitted as per the sample format had furnished more data.
A total of 59 public authorities have submitted monthly reports to the RTI Commission in place of annual reports covering the full year, while 92 annual reports have failed to state the year to which they relate to, making their initial assessment rather challenging.
Improving report quality
With regard to responsiveness, the report said – reiterating the observation made in terms of public authorities’ compliance in the submission of annual reports as per the RTI Act – that the analysis of data reveals that the responsiveness of public authorities in fulfilling a statutory duty is relatively weak. In response to this situation, the report recommended that in order to fulfil the statutory duty imposed on public authorities, public officials should submit annual reports promptly within the stipulated time period under Section 10. In furtherance of the above, the report further recommended that a mechanism to periodically monitor the authorities’ compliance with their duty under Section 10 of the Act could be introduced and implemented by the Ministry of Mass Media, thereby encouraging the authorities to submit the reports promptly.
The report concluded that, when it comes to criteria and format of the annual reports, data furnished by public authorities have been submitted under distinctive criteria and formats due to the absence of a standardised format for annual reports. By introducing specific criteria, it added, it would be an ideal layout to obtain more comprehensive data from the said authorities and maintain consistency among annual reports submitted. In this regard, the report recommended several amendments to the criteria that are applicable to annual reports.
“The inaccuracies and discrepancies observed in the data furnished by the public authorities not only impair the overall assessment of the RTI-related data, but also diminish the credibility of the RTI framework as a whole. This could be perceived as a lack of awareness of the public authorities on the statutory duty imposed on them to maintain accurate and duly catalogued records of data within the public authorities, as well as to furnish accurate and systematised data in annual reports,” the report explained in its conclusion about records management, while recommending in this regard that information officers and designated officers of every public authority should be educated and refreshed on their roles, duties, and responsibilities through periodical workshops and awareness programmes, at least bi-annually.
Meanwhile, concerning the public authorities’ directory, the report revealed that a directory of all such authorities in the State sector was not available at the time of the study for a better evaluation of annual reports submission. Taking this situation into consideration, it was recommended that the Ministry of Mass Media – in collaboration with the Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils and Local Government – establish and maintain a database of all public authorities, in order to give effect to a mechanism to monitor the compliance of each authority in submitting RTI annual reports as per the RTI Act.
In addition, the validation of data was also discussed in the report: “Data provided by the public authorities in the annual reports are the only data that the RTI Commission is presently relying upon, due to the absence of an established practice or procedure to corroborate the data that are provided by the public authorities. It is an indispensable requirement to evaluate the data provided in annual reports and validate them, a requirement which is further necessitated considering the inaccuracies and discrepancies observed during this study.” The report added in this regard that a mechanism, in view of ensuring the accuracy of reporting – as well as for the purpose of corroborating data provided by public authorities in annual reports – could be initiated and enforced by the Ministry of Mass Media.