Dear Editor,
In your editorial of May 18, 2015 it would appear that the writer sought to suggest that there is some impediment to the flow of information “from the appointed office”. For the purpose of the observations I wish to make the sentence on which I rely is “On all of these areas, openness and the willingness to provide information must become a hallmark of the Granger administration. The public looks forward to an era of greater access to information and the ability to elicit this from the appointed office”.
As the Commissioner of Information I have had cause to closely analyse the provisions of the legislation which created this office ie Access to Information Act 2011 (Act #21 of 2011). The Preamble to this act is pellucid in its purpose and scope and I set it out herein for the avoidance of doubt, viz,
“An act to provide for setting out a practical regime of right to information for persons to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government and public authorities and for the appointment of the Commissioner of Information”.
Armed with his Instrument of Commission issued by the president, the officeholder is independent of any administration, political or governmental, akin to the appointment of a judge of the Supreme Court. This independence can be culled with crystalline clarity from the provision for the removal of the commissioner in S.6 of the aforementioned act. For the benefit of those who may have been led to believe the contrary, I am obliged to disabuse their perceptions by quoting verbatim that provision.
“S.6 (1) The President may remove the Commissioner of Information from office if the Commissioner of Information –
(a) is adjudged an insolvent;
(b) has been convicted of an offence which involved moral turpitude;
(c) is unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body, or,
(d) had, or has, acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as Commissioner of Information.
“(2) Before removing the Commissioner of Information from office the President shall afford the Commis-sioner of Information an opportunity to make representations.”
Any student of the law ought to be able to discern that the foregoing provides a concrete measure of independence from any “administration”. Your editorial must therefore be retooled to reflect this observation. The incontrovertible evidence is that insufficient budgetary resources dictated the current location of this office and may have led to the misinformation that it is a segmented annex of the Office of the President. Underpinning this observation is the requirement contained in S.5 (3) which mandates the Minister of Information to provide the commissioner “with the requisite staffing and budgetary support in order to discharge his functions”.
In any of the many portfolios, be it political, judicial or otherwise, I have held, I sought to sedulously embrace their jurisdictional parameters with the aim of achieving their objectives, “without fear or favour, affection or ill will”, oaths that I took extremely seriously. This is no less so in my current informational incarnation as a “clearing house”, not as peddled in some circles, as a “warehouse”. However, I must in all candour concede that the applications so far received by this office appear to be rooted not wholly in the fertile familiarity of the provisions of the aforementioned act. Complex it may be, but it is amenable to comprehension with some measure of dedicated consideration. I well remember some senior personnel making reference to “Freedom of Information” − a conceptual malapropism in the context of the extant legislation and, if I am not mistaken, that expression cannot be found therein. I stand ready to process any application contemplated by this legislation.
I believe that it was Steve Jobs who is reported to have said “Some think design means how it looks. But of course, if you dig deeper, it’s really how it works.” I daresay that, under the editorship of David de Caires, SN would have been more perspicacious.
Yours faithfully,
Justice Charles R Ramson SC
Commissioner of Information