The Court of Appeal (CoA) this week delivered a verdict which will be remembered as a landmark decision by Sri Lanka’s Judiciary, and it is essentially a decision that upholds the public’s right to information, reiterates the powers of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, No. 12 of 2016, and of the RTI Commission, and reminds lawmakers that they too must abide by all laws that do not come under Parliamentary Privileges.

On Tuesday (28 February), observing that the provisions of the RTI Act are superior to those of the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law, No. 1 of 1975, the CoA rejected an appeal filed by the Parliament requesting that an order issued by the RTI Commission to the Parliament to release certain information, including a list of Parliamentarians who have failed to provide assets and liabilities declarations, be invalidated. The RTI Commission’s order was based on the Parliament’s rejection of a request made by journalist Chamara Sampath in 2018, under the RTI Act requesting the said information. 

This is a citizen-friendly verdict that emphasises the need for MPs or lawmakers to adhere to the country’s laws which have been formed by them. This also shows the Parliament’s unwillingness to reveal information that is of public interest. In fact, what the aforementioned RTI request sought to obtain was a list of MPs who have not provided assets and liabilities declarations as they are legally required to, not the contents of the declarations that have been submitted. If the latter was the case, MPs could have perhaps argued against the release of the stated information on privacy grounds. However, that is not the case. It is not an exaggeration to state that the Parliament’s unwillingness to let the public know who among the former have failed to abide by the Assets and Liabilities Declaration Law is indicative of the popular notion that the politicians’ think that they are, or that they should be, above the law.

Needless to say, that is not a situation that should exist in a democratic country, especially in one in which democracy, the public’s interests, and the public representatives’ accountability and integrity have remained in a questionable state for decades.

The other concerning aspect of this incident is the Parliament seeking the Judiciary’s backing to keep information – that would have directly helped the public to make informed decisions about their representatives – hidden from the public. This raises a simple yet serious question, i.e. if the Parliament is ready to go to such an extent against having to reveal a mere list of MPs who have not provided assets and liabilities declarations, how controversial could the contents of their assets and liabilities declarations be? There is also another concern – if the MPs want to keep their assets and liabilities declarations a secret, what is the level of trust that the public can uphold on them?

However, in a context where the Judiciary has given its verdict in favour of the RTI Act and several MPs having voluntarily publicised their assets and liabilities declarations, this verdict could perhaps be a starting point for a public discourse in favour of MPs that do so and against MPs that refuse to do so.

Moreover, it should also be noted that such challenges faced by the RTI Act, the RTI Commission, and also the public seeking to obtain information that should be publicly available are not limited to MPs’ assets and liabilities declarations. During the past few years, there were several occasions when public institutions attempted to defy the RTI Commission’s lawful orders. Therefore, it is also important to recognise the need to further strengthen the RTI Act and the RTI Commission.