Freedom of Information Going Forward

As insignificant as the Attorney General claimed the Privy Council ruling to be, it is amazing the amount of changes the Prime Minister has announced as a result. It is ponderous to consider what the government's response, if any, would have been had the Law Lords upheld the decision arrived at in both local courts. Because for all of his meticulous pontification on the Freedom of Information all citizens should enjoy in T&T, it took the Prime Minister quite a bit of time to arrive at the conclusion that many persons would have expected from an administration which promised transparency and accountability from its inauguration. But of course, his message is preemptively contextualized by a string of defeats over a series of FOIA litigation, which suggests that any change in policy directives announced by the Prime Minister has less to do with protecting the rights of citizens or the tax dollars collected, but rather is meant to prevent further embarrassment that may have arisen from any future rulings in the court.

That having been said, currently, in addition to the Judicial Review with regards to the Petrotrin affair, I also have a couple other FOIA requests that have been ruminating in the courts. Most notable, is an application to the Strategic Services Agency regarding information pertaining to their wiretapping exercises. The interesting thing about this case, is that after I had been granted permission to file a Judicial Review in that matter, the SSA then mounted its own challenge to have the ruling struck out based on subsidiary legislation which was enacted subsequent to the initial ruling, and presumably even because of it. Of course, the SSA was defeated again in April, as the court reaffirmed the importance of this information being in the public'c interest, but it just goes to show the level of commitment the government has had in preventing the public from knowing how they have been managing the affairs of this country.

Based on the Prime Minister's announcement last week, it will be interesting to see how this request is now handled and whether or not the SSA will continue to challenge it in the court. Because while I have no doubt that it is this matter in particular which caused Dr. Rowley to painstakingly evaluate the considerations of the FOI Act with regards to matters of National Security, the fact is that more developed nations than our own have discovered a simple compromise that I am sure can be of value in our country.

Having applied for information in the military branch of the United States of America utilizing their FOIA laws, I can safely say that it is easier to acquire sensitive material from a country in which I do not live, or am not a citizen, than it is in the land of my birth. The solution that the US, the UK and other countries utilize is the process of redaction, which allows information to be disseminated, with only the most secretive parts blotted out. Furthermore, is the fact that confidentiality in managing data in the US also has a lifespan which expires over a number of years, meaning that even information that was once designated "Top Secret" is now freely disseminated to the public. As such, the excuse that the Prime Minister has premised his exemption of information on is as flimsy as any of the other challenges his administration have brought to the courts when denying these FOIA requests.

Following the announcement of the Prime Minister, I am now able to file another request through the FOI Act, which might have been burdensome if it had to be litigated once again. Hopefully, with his instructions being funneled down the government's pipeline, going forward we can expect that all requests can be handled by these agencies in-house, as has been promised. While I am yet to receive any gratitude from the media on the matter, I am sure that they will take full advantage of the policy changes I have prompted as well. Because I am sure that they might have been as frustrated as any ordinary citizen might have felt, by the government's protocol in the past.

Best regards,

Ravi Maharaj