We are not responsible for delays in the passage of the RTI – Parliament bill

General News on Thursday, March 21, 2019

Source: citinewsroom.com

2019-03-21

Parliament's leadership wants to be exonerated from any blame for the further delay in the pbadage of the Right to Information Bill (RTI).

Ahmed Ibrahim, chief bad of the minority minority, said that the House had done its best to pbad the bill, which did not escape its last reading in Parliament.

He said that civil society organizations have asked for changes to the bill before it is pbaded, which would lead to further delay.

"The Coalition of Right to Information says that she does not want it [RTI Bill] be pbaded as we did for them to bring other things. The public must understand that it is not the Ghanaian Parliament that is trying not to adopt the ITRs. [Bill] but it's the audience that brings new amendments to the work we've done so far. Remaining with us alone, we did what we should do. "

Professor Michael Oquaye, Speaker of Parliament, made similar comments, stating that "the Parliament of Ghana has and will continue to do its part" with regard to the pbadage of the RTI.

The RTI bill has been in Parliament for nearly two decades, but it has still not been pbaded despite calls from the media and civil society groups.

The adoption of the bill has been delayed lately due to conflicts during the period of operationalization.

The Chamber and human rights defenders do not know whether to make it operational within 12 months or as soon as it is adopted.

Coalition calls for new amendments to RTI bill

Three advocacy groups, committed to ensuring that the Right to Information Bill (RTI) was pbaded, had already called for further amendments to the bill to align with the constitution. of 1992.

Ghana, the Media Coalition on RTI and OccupyGhana explained that the coalition's technical committee had reviewed the amendments made to date by Parliament and recommended to Parliament two main issues that merited further consideration.

Regarding the amendments to clause 13, a joint lobbying statement noted that Clause 13 exempts information revealing an opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation or deliberation given to a public institution because it could undermine the deliberative processes of this institution.

Although the coalition recognized the need to facilitate the effective functioning of government and the state, the coalition felt that any limitation of the constitutional right to information should be narrowly defined.

Unfortunately, the current draft Article 13 could easily be misinterpreted to dilute seriously, if not totally, the right to information.