• RTI activist and journalist Tharindu Jayawardhana highlights systemic lacuna concerning the provision of information, challenges concerning the work of the RTI Comm., and shortcomings on the part of the public

In many countries, the right to access for information was established with a legal basis long ago, but the Right to Information (RTI) Act No. 12 of 2016 was introduced as recently as 2016 in Sri Lanka. The United National Front (Good Governance) Government, which came to power in 2015, introduced this Act as a result of years of struggle waged by various parties. With the enactment of the RTI Act, any interested individual or group was provided with a legally established right to seek various forms of information pertaining to Government and semi-Government institutions, and certain private institutions that provide services that are of national importance. More than seven years have passed since the introduction of the RTI Act, but it is questionable whether we as a country have been able to reap its fruits, and whether the Government has taken the necessary steps for its improvement. 

The President of the Young Journalists’ Association of Sri Lanka (YJASL), Tharindu Jayawardhana, an activist who has been working closely with the RTI Act and the RTI Commission, the highest regulatory body related to it, shared his views on the matter.

Following are excerpts from the interview The Daily Morning conducted with Jayawardhana:

Do you think that the Government has taken adequate steps for the betterment of the RTI Act since its enactment in 2016?

The introduction of the RTI Act itself was a very progressive approach, but, it was not something that the Government did willingly at that time. They had to do it due to the influence of civil society organisations and people who showed interest in the right to information. Since its enactment, some programmes have been launched by the Ministry of Mass Media. However, I don’t believe that the Government has taken sufficient measures to improve the concept of the right to information nor has it worked to improve the RTI Commission. When the Commission was first established, it was not provided with a cent in some months. Even now, there are many issues like shortages of employees and we have seen them during appeal hearings.

Is the public’s awareness of the RTI Act satisfactory?

Yes, public awareness is progressive to some extent. Certain civil organisations and activists took a lot of effort to bring this to the village in the beginning. They launched various forms of programmes. As a result, people have some understanding about it, but, that is not adequate to make the best of this Act. There are individuals and groups who frequently use the RTI Act. However, people should be informed further about it.

How can the RTI Act be used to eliminate corruption and fraud?

One of the key reasons to introduce this Act was to create transparency. It helps to reduce corruption and create a situation where officials and politicians work with accountability and responsibility. The public authorities should maintain all records duly catalogued and indexed, and facilitate the right of access to information. Ministers should release certain information before someone asks for it. All the information related to development projects should be communicated to the public and to those who may be affected, before the project starts. Citizens should be provided with up to date information until the project is completed. When such regulations are there, it is difficult for anyone to commit frauds and corruption. If these provisions are violated by any party, people should inform the RTI Commission and seek legal action against them. The right to access information is a fundamental right, so anyone can complain to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) if anyone violates it. We can request for information pertaining to a range of matters under this Act. We can analyse them and see if there is anything illegal, corrupt or fraudulent, and complain to the relevant institutions. If we use this Act properly, we can reduce the chance of corruption and fraud. When politicians and officials know that information will get out at any time, they tend not to commit corruption and fraud.

How do government agencies work with regard to the RTI Act?

This is an Act with 44 Sections, and many rules and regulations under them. So, it is not possible to say that all of them are implemented by all government institutions, but, most of them do it properly. There are issues with institutions like the Department of Police. They don’t respond properly to information requests and related appeals. Another issue is the non-disclosure of information proactively. If proactive disclosures are done properly, there will be less requests for information. If people are given access to information, there will be no need to submit applications, and the work of the information officers and the RTI Commission will be reduced.

Does the RTI Commission fulfil its duty and responsibility properly?

The Commission is doing a lot of work, but, there is a discussion among civil activists whether it is enough or not. The RTI Act has clearly mentioned the duties and responsibilities of the Commission. I don’t believe that all those duties and responsibilities are fulfilled. The Commission spends a lot of time on the appeal hearing, but, there are many other important duties and responsibilities that it should fulfil. One of the main duties of the Commission is to supervise whether the public authorities work under this Act. I have been working closely with the Commission since 2017. So, I have both positive and negative views on it. For instance, rules regarding the procedure to be followed in conducting investigations under certain provisions of the Act have not yet been published. The lack of manpower and other resources may have caused such problematic situations. It is the responsibility of the Mass Media Ministry and the Government to provide the necessary resources to the Commission.

Does the RTI Act enable the initiation of action against incidents of people not being informed by the public authorities in making decisions?

Yes. As per this Act, when projects are implemented, those who will be affected should be informed. In addition, Section 35 of the Act states that every officer of a public authority who makes a decision that affects a person in any way must disclose the reason for that decision in writing upon the receipt of an information request. This Section applies not only to information officers, but to every officer, but it happens very rarely. Many officers don’t even know about this Clause. If such information is not disclosed, the RTI Commission can be notified. This Clause can be used to hold many officers accountable.

Will the new media-related laws that are to be introduced by the Government such as the Broadcasting Regulatory Authority Bill and the Online Safety Bill conflict with the RTI Act?

There will definitely be a collision. The right to access of information is also hindered by the Personal Data Protection Act, No. 9 of 2022 which was introduced earlier. The Bureau of Rehabilitation Act, No. 2 of 2023 would also have affected it, but, it did not happen as the relevant amendments were made upon court orders. We can see at a glance that the Government is trying to restrict the right to access information through the laws to be introduced.

Do you see any common mistakes, shortcomings, and areas to be improved on the part of the applicants who seek information?

A mistake that applicants regularly make is not specifying exactly what information they need. It is nothing against the law, but, if we need to get the information we need easily, we have to strategically prepare the application. Not following the appeals process is also a shortcoming that I see. Many people don’t follow the appeal process. I think that informing the citizens is what should be done to eliminate these shortcomings.

How has modern technology affected the right to access information?

We should get modern technology to support the right to information. Sometimes, we receive summons and information through WhatsApp. Some organisations maintain information in electronic formats. We don’t have a system as in India, where a separate system is maintained to send information requests and receive acknowledgments and reminders. Modern technology is never a hindrance to access information and it should always be used to provide citizens with easy access to information.

The RTI Act has not been amended since 2016. Is there a need for an amendment according to regional trends?

This Act has some shortcomings, but, I don’t believe that it should be amended at this point. We cannot expect progressive amendments to an Act of this sort from the current Government that brings repressive laws that hinder the right to access information. If any amendment is made, it should be done following a broader discussion among the relevant parties.

What are the restrictions based on which the public authorities most refrain from releasing information?

Section 5 of the Act provides for public authorities to refuse information requests. The issue is that certain institutions don’t release information which can clearly be released under this Act. Therefore, we have to go before the Commission and appeal. When that happens, the time of many parties is wasted. In most cases, the Commission eventually orders the relevant institution to release that information.