ACCESS OF INFORMATION (ATI) IS THE
MUST
By Daily News Reporter
The government views
the Access to Information Bill (ATI) as a significant stride towards promoting
transparency, accountability, and fighting against corruption.
Cornelius Mweetwa, Minister
of said “In line with our election promises made by His Excellency Hakainde
Hichilema, the government took the access to information bill to parliament for
the benefit of the Zambian people,” he stated.
“Once enacted, this
bill will also facilitate access to information, which is crucial in the fight
against corruption.”
Mweetwa indicated that
there would likely be extensive engagement with various stakeholders who will
be invited as witnesses by the National Assembly to provide input on the final
form and content of the Access to Information Act.
“It now remains for
parliament to play its part so that the Access to Information Act becomes a
reality that has eluded this country for a very long time. Yet, in every
election cycle, it has been used as part of political campaigns if
elected," noted Mweetwa.
No single government in the world can operate without the press,
because the press is the fourth most important estate after the executive,
judiciary and legislature in any democratic state. And for the press to be
really appreciated as the fourth estate, it must be accorded the freedom to
access information.
In 1802, former US
President Thomas Jefferson, wrote: “Where it is left for me to decide whether
we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government,
I should not hesitate to prefer the latter.”
This therefore
means journalists are supposed to play a watchdog role over the government. For
them to perform this role, they must have undeniable access to information.
Unfortunately, Zambia like many (African) countries does not have an Access to
Information law or an express provision in the constitution.
Many countries
instead have the Official Secrets Acts, so vaguely written that officials can
interpret them in a way to avoid scrutiny of their actions or they may wish to
hide something from the public. Such acts also prevent citizens from verifying
information held by powerful institutions and indeed leaders of influential
positions.
In Zambia, there
is also the Public Order Act that is often used to deny the media access to
information, arrest and detain journalists or search premises of a media
institution and confiscate material. These acts are sometimes justified on
grounds of state security.
While it is
necessary for any government to protect national security, our government often
fails to distinguish between state secrets and information that has no
implication on that security.
Public interest
arguments might include the need for properly informed debate, exposing
wrongdoing, protecting the public from danger, accounting for public funds,
demonstrating that standards are being observed, that authorities are properly
discharging their duties, ensuring that people are dealt with fairly and the
public is not misled.
If information is withheld, as is often the case, the authority
should tell you which exemption it has relied on, why it thinks the public
interest favours confidentiality and how to challenge the decision.
The first step
should be to complain under the authority’s own complaints procedure, when a
more senior official with greater authority to release information is likely to
be involved. Strictly speaking, it’s the authority’s job to show why
information should not be disclosed, not yours to prove that it can. But if you
feel the authority may have an exaggerated view of the likely harm from
disclosure or has failed to recognize the public interest in openness you
should point that out. (The Campaign for Freedom of Information)
This is a crucial
period. We have a government that promises so much on media freedom and access
to information for all. The electorate vote the party in based partly on the
assurance for access to information. Next general elections are in 2026, but
without the press having access to information, it is most likely that more
information will still not be in public domain.
As a free press
plays a watchdog role on the government in any democratic state, people can be
brought with information they need to exercise independent judgment on
governance by public officials and those who favour the same policies they
support.
Lack of access to
information hinders the free-flow of information. It promotes rumour mongering
among the citizenry. This ultimately breeds and sustains bad governance and in
the long run hinders the democratic process.
Denial of access
to information promotes unaccountability from the powers-that-be; abuse of
citizen’s rights and corruption, which has characterised many African
countries, Zambia inclusive. Without access to rightful information, corrupt
practices cannot be exposed. The Zambian electorate and general citizenry
should just rely on publicly released information which on many occasions only
has elements of truths.
A one sided press
befools society. ATI is not for fast-breaking stories. You’re more likely to
wait weeks than hours for information. But if you’re dealing with an issue that
will still be news in a month’s time or gradually putting a big story together
the Act should be just what we need
There’s no special
trick to making a request. Apply in writing or by fax or email to the authority
concerned describing the information you want. It’s a good idea to say you’re
applying under the Act, but strictly speaking you don’t need to. Any written
request is automatically valid. You can ask to be sent photocopies of
originals, have material emailed or ask to inspect records in person - the
authority is required to comply with your preference if practicable.
Photocopies may give you a better feel for how much information has been
withheld than a print out with the gaps closed up.
Information to the
media is denied in various ways. The most common one is to delay official
comment or refuse to comment on an issue. This prompts the media to publish the
story without a comment and sometimes the story is dropped, as it might be
one-sided or unsubstantiated.
Another tactic is
to refer the media to the Ministry of Information, which requires all questions
in writing, and then the ministry will forward the questions to the responsible
department or ministry. The response is relayed to the media through the same
process. This process works against the media because news cannot wait forever.
On the other hand
the state owned and controlled media is rewarded for its loyalty by being given
better, but still selective, access to public officials and institutions.
Journalists and the public have no institutionalised powers to compel officials
to answer questions or provide information.
Official Secrets
Acts, for example, are invoked when the media touches on matters relating to
the military and the executive branch of the government. Issues related to the
military and security are rightly recognised as sensitive because they affect
the security of the entire nation. The harm to the nation can be immense if such
information is made available to enemies or potential enemies.
The continued attacks
on journalist prove that the government is not committed to freedom of the
press. Though freedom of expression is guaranteed under article 20 of the
constitution, there is need for an exclusive article for freedom of the press.
A state that
prosecutes journalists on allegations of breaching any government secrets
encourages the belief that there is something to hide, creating a credibility
gap with the public and tensions with the journalists and the media as an
institution.
There have been
representations to have a guaranteed freedom of the press clause in the
constitution.
“(ATI) is not for
fast-breaking stories. You’re more likely to wait weeks than hours for
information. But if you’re dealing with an issue that will still be news in a
month’s time or gradually putting a big story together, the Act should be just
what you need,” says Maurice Frankel, Director of The Campaign for Freedom of
Information.
James, a Lecturer
in Media Studies in the Department of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes
University, said that there is need for a balance to be struck which will
enhance the standing of public institutions and protect the interests of
society. This balance necessitates the abolition of Official Secret Acts in
favour of (Access to) Information Acts.
He added that
(Access to) Information Acts can have provisions that protect sensitive
information from being placed in the public domain. However, such provisions
should not deviate from the principle of openness. Mechanisms must be worked
out so that it can be verified that particular information is sensitive, or
which aspects of such information are sensitive.
“We must rectify
the situation where information is declared secret and so unavailable to the
local media because it allegedly endangers national security, yet it remains
available to media from ‘enemy’ countries,” advises James.
Public officials
and agencies must prove that information needs to be kept out of the public
domain and not the other way round.
When a proper
mechanism is put in place, journalists should adhere to the system or face the
legal and professional consequences of publishing information that is legally
protected.
It is therefore in
the interest of the journalist and the media that well-defined Access to
Information Acts become law. Access to information will enable journalist to
“dig deeper” while remaining on the side of the law and not appearing to be
above the law. This way, journalists can practice self-regulation and
institutionally they can fulfill the best ideals of journalism by producing
accurate and balanced reports for the public good.
However, the
enactment of the Access to Information Act should be watched and scrutinised on
each stage so that we do not have an Act that restricts journalists from
acquiring justifiable information.
As James Madison
forth President of the U.S. wrote: “A popular government, without popular
information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue or a farce or a
tragedy; or perhaps both.” We need to have a popular government with popular
information and undeniable means of accessing it.
Remember, the
right of the people to speak out through a free press is the hallmark for a
democratic society.