by Glory Mushinge
– Zambia –
The procrastination of government over the enactment of the Freedom of Information Bill (FOIB), which gives the public and journalists free access to public information, has ignited concern, with some members of the judiciary and parliament joining the media in fighting for the bill’s passing.
The FOIB was first presented in parliament on 22nd November 2002, by former Information and Broadcasting Minister, Newstead Zimba, who had described the legislation as the backbone of representative government, but the bill was deferred. This week, Information and Broadcasting Minister, Vernon Mwanga, who is also the chief government’s spokesperson, said that the bill needs to be seriously scrutinized.
However, in a paper recently presented at a workshop organized by the Media Institute of Southern Africa MISA-Zambia for MP’s in Lusaka titled ‘The need for members of Parliament to support the enactment of FOIB’, opposition MP Sakwiba Sikota, who is also a lawyer, called on fellow MP’s, the media, and the general public, to become strong advocates for the enactment of the bill.
Sikota observed that MP’s sometimes thought that FOIB was only for journalists without realizing the benefits they would also reap.
“There is sometimes a feeling that members of parliament can get information they require through raising questions in parliament. I would like to illustrate that the FOIB would present better opportunities to the MP to get information than even questions raised in parliament in certain cases,” said Sikota
He stated that information at times would have a direct bearing on democracy such as access to information on the electoral roll.
“In Zambia, the electoral Commission is reluctant to give information on the electoral roll in electronic format to interested parties. In Zimbabwe the opposition MDC had to take the electoral Commission to court on the basis of constitutional provisions and obtained an order that the electoral commission was bound to give interested parties an electronic voters register. There is no better way to illustrate that freedom or access to information impacts on the democratic process,” he said.
The Zambian constitution has a clause in an article that talks generally about freedom of the press, but there is need for a clear, definitive freedom of information law.
Article 20 of the Constitution, sub-article (1), states that “ except with his own consent, a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression” and Sikota warned that to hinder one from communicating or disseminating information infringes on that part of the Constitution.
He noted that a good FOI Act would give time limits within which information should be made available. With adequate sanctions to prevent obstruction of the Act, the government would not be in a position to defer answering or providing the information, as was sometimes the case in parliament.
Speaking at the same function, journalist Amos Chanda, representing the Press Association of Zambia, said the core business of journalists is collecting information. The ease or difficulty with which journalists find the business of news gathering determineds how effective they will be serving in the onerous role as government and societal watchdog.
“Freedom of information is not exclusive to journalists. They seek it only to use it to acquire quality information to pass on to the public so the public can make informed decisions on a wide range of national issues including who should govern them. But often times, government is overly suspicious of journalists’ demands for freedom. Journalism is at the forefront of the exercise of the fundamental freedom of expression; it is so inviolable that it is the very oxygen of democracy,” said Chanda.
And lawyer Patrick Matibini said, “ Freedom of information is potentially an important tool to redress the imbalance in power. It enables effective supervision of the executive branch of government by both the legislature and the public”.
He added that the executive branch of government had in its possession a vast amount of information and was in a position to authorize selective disclosure in a manner and at a time convenient for the government, saying in this respect that partial disclosure could distort accountability.
Matibini said the principle of maximum disclosure established a presumption that all information held by public authorities needed to be subject to disclosure only to be overruled in very limited circumstances.
“The principle encapsulates the basic rationale underlying the very concept of freedom of information and ideally it should be provided for in the constitution to make it clear that access to official information is a basic right. Therefore, the overriding goal of freedom of information legislation should be to implement maximum disclosure in practice. Where a public authority seeks to deny access to the information, it should bear the onus of justifying the refusal at each stage of proceedings. In other words the public must show that the information which it wishes to withhold comes within the scope of the limited regime of expectation.”
Leave a Reply