The Tribune

By KEILE CAMPBELL

Tribune Staff Reporter

kcampbell@tribunemedia.net

MORE than 14 years after Parliament first passed freedom of information legislation, The Bahamas is still waiting for a fully operational system for accessing government records, with the Davis administration only now consulting on regulations intended to put the machinery for requests, reviews and appeals in place.

The Office of the Attorney General announced on Monday that consultation has begun on the Freedom of Information (General) Regulations, 2026, one of four pieces of proposed legislation released for public comment.

The latest step comes more than nine years after the current Freedom of Information Act received assent in March 2017. Its predecessor was passed in April 2012 but was never brought into force. The 2017 law repealed and replaced it, but only selected provisions were subsequently commenced — first in April 2017, another provision in March 2018 and another in May 2021.

The country's first Freedom of Information Commissioner, retired Supreme Court Justice Keith Thompson, was not appointed until May 2021, four years after the current Act was passed.

Attorney General Wayne Munroe described the latest developments as “a long time coming,” as he encouraged the public to review the proposed regulations and submit feedback.

Asked whether Bahamians could expect the Freedom of Information Act to be fully implemented during the current administration, Mr Munroe pointed to a directive he received from Prime Minister Philip Davis and the commitment contained in the Speech from the Throne. He did not provide a timetable for full implementation.

The proposed regulations would establish the practical machinery for making freedom of information requests, including application procedures, response periods, internal reviews and the responsibilities of information managers across public bodies.

Separate proposed fee regulations set out charges for copies, certification and some forms of records, along with exemptions and waivers. The draft general regulations would also require applicants to provide government-issued identification when making a request.

Mr Munroe said the Freedom of Information Office sent the regulations to his office.

Newly appointed Information Commissioner Donna Newton and Assistant Information Commissioner Sally Ann Lockett Pratt met with him before Mrs Newton took up the post this month, he said.

He said Mrs Newton would be given time to settle into the position and advance the office's work before advising the government on appointing a deputy commissioner.

Mr Munroe also sought to temper expectations about what the legislation would provide once operational.

“A lot of people have misapprehensions about the Freedom of Information Act,” he said. “Firstly, they think it makes all information available. That is not so. You should read the Act.”

The legislation provides a general right of access to records held by public authorities but contains exemptions.

Mr Munroe also said the Information Commissioner's Office would not be the first stop for someone seeking a government record.

Requests would instead be made initially to the ministry, agency or other public body holding the information. Applicants could turn to the Information Commissioner's Office if access is refused.

The government is also reviewing public officers previously identified to serve as Freedom of Information officers to determine whether they remain in the public service and are still assigned to the relevant agencies.

Mr Munroe said officials would also consider how close those officers are to retirement before investing in training, with the Freedom of Information Office expected to advise him on the way forward.

He said the government decided to seek public feedback before the regulations are signed and tabled so proposed measures could be scrutinised and potentially amended.

The government's official legislation website now lists both the Freedom of Information (General) Regulations, 2026 and Freedom of Information (Fees) Regulations, 2026 among its recent proposed measures.

Organisation for Responsible Governance executive director Matt Albury said the regulations were an important part of establishing how members of the public could seek information and challenge refusals.

Public authorities would generally have 30 days to respond to a request, he said, while a request submitted to the wrong government body could be transferred to the appropriate agency, potentially triggering another response period.

“During the legislation, we talked about this being too long,” Mr Albury said, “but that’s what the law says right now.”

He said public bodies would also have to explain decisions to withhold or redact information and identify the exemption being relied upon.

“If it’s redacted, they have to defend why they redacted it,” Mr Albury said. “If it's personal information then it, due to our privacy laws, can’t be shared. But if not, they have to be very specific about what conditions on the exceptions were being raised.”

Applicants dissatisfied with the response could pursue further review, ultimately taking a dispute to the Information Commissioner and then the Supreme Court.

Mr Albury welcomed the decision to consult the public before the regulations are finalised.

“That's a great step. That's a huge step,” he said. “People need to recognise that as a major step forward.”

But he acknowledged the protracted implementation of the law, saying progress had come incrementally despite the current Act having been passed in 2017.

Mr Albury cautioned that completing the legislative framework would not, by itself, guarantee greater government transparency.

“Just passing laws, we realise, is not enough,” he said. “You've got to find a way for folks to get involved, and that's what leads to more participation.”