The Tribune

By RICARDO WELLS

Tribune Staff Reporter

rwells@tribunemedia.net

A coalition made up of several of the country’s civic organisations yesterday met and discussed their issues with the revamped Freedom of Information Bill with Senator Branville McCartney yesterday.

The coalition was led by Organisation for Responsible Governance (ORG) Executive Director Matt Aubrey and Citizens for a Better Bahamas Treasurer Joanne Lundy.

Over the course of a 45-minute meeting, Mr McCartney who was appointed leader of opposition business in the Senate by Official Opposition Leader Loretta Butler-Turner in December, was made aware of several “critical components” the group said were rejected by the government during its public consultation process of the legislation.

The FOI Bill was passed in the House of Assembly this month. It now has to be approved by the Senate.

The former Bamboo Town MP, expected to lead opposition debate in the Senate, was informed that major concerns remain outstanding despite the bill’s advancement to the Senate, such as, the appointment of the information commissioner; the definition of public authority; time limits for exempt records; and time limits for responding to requests for information.

The coalition of more than 21 groups informed Mr McCartney and Democratic National Alliance Deputy Leader Chris Mortimer that they remain hopeful that agitation by figures such as Mr McCartney could ultimately generate some form of changes to the legislation.

As it relates to the appointment of the information commissioner, the coalition recommended that the post should be filled by someone appointed through measures independent of the government, such as the Judicial Services Committee or a Parliament Select Committee with representation from the Opposition.

Additionally, the group said civil society should be included in the decision-making process either though membership on the Select Committee or the publication of a short-list of candidates and public feedback on the candidates.

As constituted, this FOI Bill legislates the appointment of an information commissioner in similar means to that of the appointment of a judge on senior officers on any of the country’s law enforcement branches - hand picked by the executive branch of government.

Mr McCartney was presented with several cases of the selection process internationally, with the case of Bangladesh provided as a comparison and the Cayman Islands as a regional counterpart.

Bangladesh’s Right to Information Act specifies that a selection committee shall consist of five members - a judge of the appellate division who is nominated by the chief justice and will act as the chairman of said committee; Cabinet secretary, one member each from the ruling party and opposition, nominated by the speaker; and one Journalism representative nominated by the government - with a view to providing recommendation for the appointment of the chief of information.

The Cayman Islands, in its Freedom of Information law calls for the establishment of the position of the information commissioner who is appointed by the governor after consultation with Cabinet and after a process conducted in accordance with public nomination process that is transparent and open.

Secondly, as it relates to the definition of public authority, the coalition recommended that the definition include legislative, administrative and non-statutory bodies.

The group said FOI, once passed, should also cover private organisations that operate with substantial public funds and performing public functions and services.

That would encompass every company, corporation or organisation assisted or funded by the government.

Thirdly, as it relates to the timeframe for exempt records, which the Christie administration has placed at 30 years, the coalition recommended that the timeframe be reduce to 15 years.

To aid their recommendation, the group provided examples from Canada, Cayman Islands, India and Trinidad and Tobago - with exemption laws in those countries ranging from 10 to 20 years.

The coalition also made recommendations to address the time limit for responding to requests for information. As constituted, the current version of the bill calls for up to 30 days with a possible extension of a further 30 days on the basis of “reasonable cause” which is not defined in the bill.

The coalition recommended that these time limits for public authorities to respond to requests for information are very excessive. Additionally it was argued that the extension period should be reduced to ten days and “reasonable cause” for such extension should be limited to force majeure events.

Furthermore, the coalition said the transfer period should be no longer than five days.

The Senate is expected to begin its debate on the FOI Bill next Thursday.