The
Open
Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) today released the results
of a study that exposes the government for failing to implement
a crucial Transparency Law passed over two years ago.
At its Second Annual Open Democracy Review
in Cape Town, ODAC reported that the majority of public
servants have not heard of the Promotion of Access to Information
Act 2000, which came into operation in March of 2001.
"We found that 54% of the public bodies we contacted
were unaware of the Act, 16% were aware of the Act but not
implementing it, and only 30% were aware and implementing
it." said Alison Tilley, ODAC Manager.
She was speaking at a conference today in Cape Town, where
a community of users of access to information law came together
to discuss problems with getting access to government and
private sector records.
The
Act is intended to provide a mechanism for giving effect
to the right to access to information provided in the Constitution.
This right of access applies to both privately and publicly
held information.
"We also found that in the private sector, an insufficient
number of bodies had heard of or implemented the Act to
be a statistically significant sample. We are disappointed
in the levels of implementation that we have found thus
far." said Tilley.
Andrew Puddephatt, Director of ARTICLE 19, an international
organisation focussing on freedom of expression and access
to information, said "The South African legislation
is the gold standard against which we measure other laws:
we would be very disappointed were it to fall at the hurdle
of implementation."
Tseliso Thipanyane, head of research at the SA Human Rights
Commission, told the Review meeting that "Sadly, to
date, out of more than 800 public agencies only twenty have
prepared reports on the pattern of requests and refusals.
Political Will - Question Mark!"
The results of the Study are also contained in a book published
today by the Centre, called "The Right to Know, the
Right to Live", edited by Richard Calland and Alison
Tilley, which also contains discussions from around the
world on the impact of access to information on poverty
and inequality. The book is available through IDASA Publishing:
021 467 5600.
"The right to access information is a right that unlocks
the door to so many other rights." said Richard Calland,
Executive Chair of ODAC. "A strong sense of determination
unites the access to information community. We will not
let this crucial law gather dust. We will use it and we
will enforce it. We will not go away."
The Review meeting endorsed a Statement and Recommendations,
a copy of which is included below.
For more information call Alison Tilley, Manager: ODAC,
on 083 258 2209.
THE
SECOND ANNUAL OPEN DEMOCRACY REVIEW
Declaration and Recommendations
On
10th October 2002, a group of civil society organisations,
together constituting an access to information community,
with representatives of the SA Human Rights Commission,
the Public Service Commission and the Public Protector,
and with some of its international associates, met in Cape
Town for the purpose of reviewing the implementation of
the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2000 and agreed
on the following statement for publication to the media,
government ministers and officials and to the Chairperson
of the National Assembly Portfolio Committee on Justice:
NOTING:
1. That South African access to information act, underpinned
by its constitutional bill of rights, represents the 'gold
standard' internationally, and that the international human
rights community expects that South Africa will continue
to set the highest standards in terms of the implementation
of a new culture of openness and accountability in the exercise
of public and private power;
2. The importance of the right to information as a linking,
leverage right, to enable citizens, especially the poor
and most vulnerable members of society, to realise other
socio-economic rights, and enabling them to participate
meaningfully in the democratic process and thereby noting
that the Right to Know is the Right to Live;
3. The inadequacy of government's implementation of the
Promotion of Access to Information Act 2000, including the
widespread failure to appoint deputy information officers
and the general failure to meet the time-limits for the
completion and submission of manuals to the SA Human Rights
Commission (while recognising exceptions, such as the excellence
of the Department of Defence's approach to implementation);
4. The apparent weakness and inconsistency of both electronic
and paper-based record-keeping in state agencies;
5. The absence of any serious response to the Act by the
private sector to its obligations under the Act;
6. The apparent flagrant disregard for the time-limits and
other obligations under the Act by the implementing agency,
the Department of Justice, in response to the request for
the Reparations Policy document by the Khulumani Support
Group;
7. The apparent general disregard for the time-limits when
responding to requests for records;
8. The centrality of the SA Human Rights Commission's role
in monitoring the implementation of the Act, it's own difficulties
in meeting its statutory responsibilities under the Act
that also influence the effective implementation of the
Act by government;
9. The growing global campaign for transparency in the International
Financial Institutions further notes the importance of the
NEPAD project to all Africans, and the absence of adequate
public participation in its development.
RECOMMENDS:
10. That parliament's Portfolio Committee on Justice, as
soon as practicable, review the options for the establishment
of a new independent review mechanism, including at the
provincial level, by comparing different models for an Access
to Information Commissioner, such as the Hungarian Freedom
of Information Commissioner, that would provide a more accessible
remedy for citizens and a less expensive and resource-consuming
enforcement mechanism for government than the current requirement
to go the High Court to appeal a denial;
11. That the Public Protector be asked to investigate the
general practice within government agencies in relation
to responding to requests (in accordance with its authority
under section 91 of the Act), with specific attention to
the appointment of deputy information officers, the development
of internal codes of practice and staff training programmes;
12. That government agencies be required, as a part of a
standardised set of Codes of Practice, to respond to POATIA
requests by means of a completed Access Request Response
form, in order to provide greater transparency and accountability
in the process of request-making and to provide a better
service to citizen-requesters, and that the Regulations
to the Act be amended accordingly;
13. That National Archives be resourced and tasked to fulfil
its mandate to ensure the proper management of public records,
in particular its inspection authority, and thereby to assist
the preparation of manuals and the efficient response to
requests for record;
14. That the NEPAD secretariat and members of the African
Union adopt and publish a transparency policy and concomitant
implementation plan, for the NEPAD project and related processes
such as the monitoring mechanisms, so as to facilitate public
participation in the evolution of NEPAD.
And CALLS on the SA Human Rights Commission:
15. To exercise its power under its own Human Rights Commission
Act to hold government to account for its failure to meet
its various obligations under POATIA;
16. To commit adequate resources to building capacity to
meet its own obligations under the Act;
17. To join with civil society organisations active in the
field of access to information in reaching a common strategy
for combating the apparent absence of political will to
effectively implement POATIA.
Signed
by:
The Open Democracy Advice Centre
The Public Service Accountability Monitor
The Centre for the Study of Violence & Reconciliation
IDASA
The Black Sash
South African History Archive
The Khulumani Support Group
With their International Associates:
ARTICLE 19
The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Ghana
The Peoples' Campaign for Right to Information (MKSS), India
Media Rights Agenda, Nigeria
Media Institute of Southern Africa
IPYS, Peru
The Open Society Archive, Hungary
The Center for Public Integrity, United States.
The
Open Democracy Advice Centre's mission is to promote
open and transparent democracy; foster a culture of
corporate and government accountability; and assist
people in South Africa to realise their human rights.
ODAC seeks to achieve its mission through supporting
the effective implementation of rights and laws that
enable access to, and disclosure of, information.
