the MPs are in Mombasa discussing the FOI,<br>i know we are following discussions keenly but here is an analysis by a kenyan journalist which i hope will help shed some light,<br><br>please read and comment<br><br><b style=""></b><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><b style="">FOI: A MILESTONE FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION <o:p></o:p></b></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><b style="">By Vincent Lempaa<o:p></o:p></b></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">Freedom of Information Policy, if finally becomes a law or a statutory instrument in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Kenya</st1:country-region></st1:place> will be<span style=""> </span>a big millstone for not only the freedom of expression but freedom to know as well.</div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><span style=""> </span>From the outset it is worth noting that our former colonial masters- <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region> published its White Paper on freedom of information in 1997 which eventually became a law in the year 2000 but was fully implemented<span style=""> </span>2005.</div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">The government for the first time in the history of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region> intended that the citizens should have a legal right to information and the records in which that information is contained. In addition an independent Information commissioner was appointed who is answerable not to parliament but the court. </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height:
150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">Just like the Kenyan Legal System has been substantively influenced by the English Legal System so is the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Kenya</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s policy document is influenced by the freedom of information act 2000. If the document, as prepared by the Information Ministry becomes a law or a statute it will resemble the English 2000 Act not only in form but also in content.</div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">It is expected that if it becomes a statutory instrument, it will supersede the existing documents related to the information in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Kenya</st1:place></st1:country-region> such as the National Archives and Documentation Act,<span
style=""> </span>the Records Disposal Act and the Official Secrets Act. </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">In its preamble, the Access to Information Policy ( 3.1.1) <span style=""> </span>the document is couched in very liberal terms like facilitating citizens with greater communication with public bodies and increasing participation in the Democratic Processes and Nation Building. Indeed citizens will have wider access to information subject to “harm test’’. </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">The document, if it sees the light of parliamentary calendar will definitely open up the processes of government but the “harm test” as it is applied in the<span style="">
</span>so called liberal democracies is likely to be more strict in Kenya for<span style=""> </span>obvious reasons that ours is a nascent democracy unlike the <span style=""> </span>West. </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">By way of an introduction s. (3.2) states that: There will be some <i style="">consultation that will not be accessible not to fetter the operation of those institutions</i>.<span style=""> </span>How narrow or wide such clauses will be interpreted can have an equally high degree of fettering the freedom to know.</div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><span style=""> </span>It is to be assumed the<span style=""> </span>meaning to be accorded to such words
as<span style=""> </span><i style="">public bodies</i> will be as wide as the one used in determining what they really are in the judicial review given the document <span style=""> </span>chooses judicial review<span style=""> </span>remedies as the best to vindicate any infringement on freedom to know.</div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><span style=""> </span>S. (3.6) provides for the procedure of handling application but it is cast in such general terms: <i style="">application for access to documents shall be handled promptly</i>. How prompt is prompt will be the underlying question is this situation. </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">This is to be compared and contrasted
with the specific terms that characterize the English Freedom of Information Act 2000. <i style="">Request must be in writing and the authority is under duty to respond to the request within 20 working days of its receipt.<span style=""> </span></i><span style=""> </span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">The provision of s. (3.10.1) is specifically express that private bodies that carry out statutory functions and those that are contracted out by the public organizations are within the bill. This distinction is crucial given the type of problems of interpretation it has continuously created in courts for the purposes of the judicial review remedies.</div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">By s (3.11) - The reuse of Public Information. The minister, guessing it is the information
minister is given discretion to - <i style="">issuing regulations regarding access to public information for the purposes of commercial exploitation</i>.<span style=""> </span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">How reasonable such discretion will be exercised by the minister is everybody’s guess. It would also be better if the<span style=""> </span>bill stated expressly under which circumstances do records become value- less and non current as per the provisions of s (3.13.1) for the purposes of destruction.<span style=""> </span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">The provisions on National Security, Defense and International Relations are cut and paste of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and critics and scholars have been at pains with its wide and ambiguity.</div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><span style=""> </span>They have argued that such terms are prone to abuse by the executive arm of the government.<span style=""> </span>In our situation, the Bill does not try to define them and it can only be concluded that parliament will be creating an assailable discretion on the executive to decide on the remits of such words.</div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">By s (3.14.4) <i style="">the freedom of Information Act shall uphold the right of personal privacy</i>.<span style=""> </span>This is to be welcomed as it will protect the vulnerable members of the societies from the excesses of the media in the behest of freedom of expression.
</div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">On Review and Appeal the Bill is also a copy cut of the FIA 2000. The proposed office of information commissioner is and his powers and functions are akin to those of the same institution as it abstains in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">England</st1:place></st1:country-region>. </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">The Bill, by s. (4.3.4) attempt to oust any parliamentary or executive power upon the commissioner.<span style=""> </span>The provision, good as it sound, raises some constructional questions. </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">The provision that the commissioner will only be answerable
to Court hence judiciary ousts the power of the people expressed through elected representative.<span style=""> </span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">The judiciary will have control of such an important office and it is not an elected body and in theory they are not answerable to the electorate.</div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">On the rights of appeal as per the provision of s (5.4). This section is somewhat ambiguous. It bars <i style="">individual from appealing against the decision of the information commissioner in Court. </i>One is left wondering whether representative groups are also barred. </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height:
150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">Besides, Freedom of information is about interests that are normally christened as fundamental rights. Much as judicial review procedures are thorough they have their inherent limitations like the standing –locus standi Public and private law exclusivity rules and other strictures as time limitation. </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">As a fundamental right- freedom of expression, the bill would have not limited review to judicial review.</div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><span style=""> </span>Individuals’ rights and those of representative groups will be better protected if they had several
ways of accessing justice like constitutional reference that are not fettered by excessive procedures. </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><span style=""> </span>By and large Freedom of information Bill as drafted is an ambitious project and when it eventually becomes an act it will a big steps towards much cherished freedom of expression.<span style=""> </span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">This will be more so for the so called forth estates that works for gain from processing and disseminating information.<span style=""> </span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:
justify; line-height: 150%;">There will be more accurate reporting as journalist and editors will base their reports on facts and not speculations. This will in turn reduce the high number of defamation suits that have crippled some of the media houses. </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">However the experience in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region> shows that this is not likely to happen quickly as the media would like it to be. In the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region> a Bill that was published in 1997 was implemented eights years later 2005. <span style=""> </span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><o:p> </o:p></div> <div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">This delay attracted more criticisms that overshadowed the discussion of the content of the Bill <span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span></div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;">Ends <span style=""> </span><i style=""><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></i></div> <BR><BR>Rebecca Wanjiku,<br>journalist,<br>p.o box 33515, <br>Nairobi.00600<br>Kenya.<br><br>Tel. 254 720 318 925<br><br>blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/<p>
<hr size=1>We won't tell. Get more on <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
">shows you hate to love</a><br>(and love to hate): <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
">Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.</a>