Right to Information laws are crucial for combating corruption: CA

By granting citizens the right to access information held  by public authorities, the Authorities can expose instances of  corruption, maladministration, and abuse of power

This access to  information makes citizens to participate more effectually in public  life and hold those in power accountable. To sustain a developed  country, bribery and corruption must be curtailed

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda 

In another judgement broadening the scope of the  applicability of the Right to Information Act, the Court of Appeal  recently held that in the modern era, the Right to Information laws are  crucial for combating corruption by increasing transparency and  accountability within public institutions.   

In its judgement, the Court of Appeal upheld the Right to  Information Commission’s (RTIC) directive to release information  relating to former Sri Lanka Telecom (SLT) Chief Operating Officer (COO)  Priyantha Fernandez’s foreign business travels from 2010 to 2019,  including approvals and expenses.   

Appellant, G. Surendran had initially requested those information through an RTI application dated 03.01.2022.   

With Court of Appeal Justice R. Gurusinghe agreeing,  Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra delivered this judgement observing that  the requested information is well within the interest and activity of  the public domain.  

“By granting citizens the right to access information held  by public authorities, the Authorities can expose instances of  corruption, maladministration, and abuse of power. This access to  information makes citizens to participate more effectually in public  life and hold those in power accountable. To sustain a developed  country, bribery and corruption must be curtailed. Thus, the rule should  be access to information, and the exemption should be refusal,” Justice  Premachandra observed.   

The Petitioner (SLT), the Public Authority, by this appeal,  sought to set aside the RTI Commission’s decision dated December 14,  2022.   

The Petitioner claims exemption under Sections 5(1)(a) and  (g) of the RTI Act. The Petitioner contends that the RTIC acted in  violation of statutory procedure by directing the release of information  before the expiration of the statutory appeal period under Section  34(1) of the RTI Act. The Petitioner further argues that the Commission  misapplied the law and failed to consider the legal protections and  commercial sensitivities applicable to a listed company governed by the  CSE’s public disclosure rules. It submits that the Commission’s decision  was arbitrary, contrary to law, and violated constitutional rights,  specifically Article 14A (2) on access to information and Article 28(E)  concerning the duties of citizens, particularly where third-party  interests and confidentiality obligations are involved.   

In his objections, the appellant raised several preliminary  objections, stating that the Public Authority Petitioner’s application  is based on false and forged facts, lacks a valid affidavit, and  constitutes a misuse of the legal process, warranting its dismissal in  limine. The Appellant argued that the application is legally  misconceived and non-compliant with the Court of Appeal Appellate Rules.    

The appellant further emphasised that under the Right to  Information Act No. 12 of 2016, the Petitioner is required to uphold  principles of transparency and accountability. The Appellant-Respondent  reiterates that his revised request limited to details of foreign  travels, approvals, and expenses related to Mr. Priyantha Fernandez is  not exempt under Sections 5(1A) or 5(1G) of the RTI Act, contrary to the  Petitioner’s position, and that the refusal to disclose the requested  information is unlawful.   

Kaushalya Nawarathna, P.C. with Prabudda Hettiarachchi  instructed by Halidja Begum appeared for the Petitioner. T.  Sivanandarajah appeared for the Appellant. Himali Kularathne with Aruni  Senarathna appeared for the RTI Commission.