[ad_1]
<! –
->
After 19 years, Parliament finally pbaded the bill on the right to information, but an activist claims that there is no mood to party.
"It was very exhausting," said RTI coalition member Samson Lardy Anyenini, on the effects of the concerted struggle to get Parliament to act.
The bill is supposed to make operative Article 21 (1) (f) of the Constitution which states that "Everyone has the right to information subject to the necessary qualifications and laws in a democratic society".
It was written for the first time in 1999 under the auspices of the Institute of Economic Affairs. But it would be presented for the first time in Parliament on February 5, 2010.
It took about 6,988 days, the mandate of three parliaments and three presidents of the House, a chamber full of MPs who spoke, debated, promised, dismissed, suspended, and finally pbaded – late at night from Monday to Friday .
File Photo: NDC MP Alban Bagbin and Majority Leader Osei-Kyei Mensah Bonsu
"It's a historic feat," said Second Deputy Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin after presiding over the pbadage of the law in Parliament.
But oneAll this has been done under the weight of a resounding media plea, sometimes accompanied by hard language.
Samson Lardy Anyenini, a member of the RTI coalition, who was awaiting pbadage of the bill, reread the plea back and concluded that Parliament had subjected the population to "unnecessary suffering".
In weighing the plea, the lawyer said the adoption of the bill is a "sad commentary on our parliament" and "a sad commentary on governance".
He explained that the right to information is already enshrined in the 1992 constitution. "Just confirm it," he said. The purpose of the bill was to specify the practical steps for obtaining information.
Samson Lardy Anyenini said that the people on whose behalf the government draws its power have expressed the wish to know how decisions are made on their behalf, in accordance with the law on the ITRs.
However, Parliament's leaders reportedly stated that since the financial implications of the bill were not taken into account in the 2019 budget, the implementation of the law would begin in 2020.
Mr. Anyenini, puzzled, said that Parliament had pbaded dozens of bills without complaining about the existence of a budget allocation for the implementation of these laws.
Parliament argued that the government should recruit information officers to process applications, but the justice practitioner wondered why protection officers of public institutions simply could not be required to deal with such requests. requests.
"Lots of rubbish has been thrown at us all the time," Samson Lardy Anyenini said of the desperation caused by the many excuses against the addition.
"You just can not get away with it," he says.
And then there were antics in parliament.
"Whenever the matter had to be considered in Parliament, a member would rise to say that we did not have a quorum and therefore had to stop examining it," he said, noting that the MP would raise no objection against other bills. it did not command a quorum.
He observed some impression on the part of politicians to take credit for finally pbading the law.
"The jury is free to know if this has been done with some kindness or public pressure."
The justice practitioner also said that he was not satisfied with the final state of the bill that had been pbaded, noting that some clauses could still refuse information on issues such as public contracts.
But he was not desperate, he said, pointing out that the law offers the opportunity to ensure that the public gets the information it demands.
A person seeking information from a public institution should make the request to an information officer who has 14 days to confirm or refuse the request.
In case of refusal, the applicant can appeal the head of the public institution who must respond within a specified time.
In case of refusal, the applicant may forward the request to the Right to Information Commission for review.
The law awaits the presidential accent. After that, the government has to submit a legislative instrument to Parliament.
An ITR issue is referred to Parliament.
[ad_2]
Source link
