Parliament debates Right to Information Bill
Parliament will not be stampeded into passing a Right to Information Bill (RTI) that will not stand the test of time, the Majority Leader, Mr Alban Bagbin, has said.
Advertisement
He acknowledged the fact that the bill was important and necessary but said as legislators, members would not be pushed into passing a bill that would turn out not to be effective, successful or popular.
He was contributing to the debate on the deletion and insertion of clauses in the bill in Parliament yesterday.
He said Parliament would do a thorough work on the RTI in spite of the limited time available and the clamour for early passage.
The Bill
Article 21 ( 1) (f) of the 1992 Constitution provides that "all persons have the right to information subject to such qualifications and laws as are necessary and the purpose of the bill is to give substance to that constitutional provision by providing for access to official information held by government agencies and the qualifications and conditions under which the access should be obtained.
Clause one of the bill provides for access to official information held by a government agency.
It states: "Except for information specified as exempt information, a person has the right of access to information held by government agencies and does not need to give a reason for the request for access, unless that person requests that the application be treated with urgency.
Where a request for access to information, that is partly exempt, is made, the agency to which the request is made is required to honour the request in respect of that part of information which is not exempt.
Other Trending Stories
Heated debate
It generated a heated debate yesterday with members expressing varied opinions and views about it.
Some were of the opinion that any person who needed information urgently needed to state in writing to the public officer justifying why there was the need for urgency.
The public officer, they argued, needed to determine whether indeed the information was needed urgently before granting it.
They also contended that the release of information needed to come at a cost to the individual who requested it.
But some other MPs were of the view that asking people who requested information to state reasons why they needed it urgently was tantamount to putting impediments in their way.
One other contentious issue was the question of who was entitled to information; a Ghanaian or a foreigner.
The member for Essikado/Ketan and Second Deputy Speaker, Mr Joe Ghartey, said it was not clear whether only Ghanaians were entitled to information under the bill.
In his view, the provision that information could be accessed by "members of the public" meant that even foreigners could access information.
He said if the intention was to make information available to Ghanaians only, then that needed to be stated in the bill in clear terms.