ACCESS BLOCKED

The tribunal created under the Access to Information (ATI) Act to handle appeals when Jamaicans are denied information by government agencies or public bodies has been inactive since February.

Attorney-at-law Andre Earle, KC, is claiming that the rights of one of his clients, who is challenging such a decision, are being significantly infringed.

The Gleaner has been reliably informed that there are nearly 20 appeals now in limbo without a panel to hear them.

The ATI law was established to, among other things, reinforce and manage the public’s general right of access to official documents held by public authorities, subject to exemptions.

The right to accessing official documents follows certain fundamental principles underlying the system of constitutional democracy, including governmental accountability, transparency, and public participation in national decision-making.

The five-year term of the last tribunal ended more than six months ago, and despite three letters written to the current minister with responsibility for information, Senator Dr Dana Morris Dixon, informing her that there was no panel in place, Earle told The Gleaner that to date, he is not aware of any new appointments.

“We are prepared to go to court to seek leave for an order to compel the minister to carry out her job,” Earle said.

“I don’t understand how the State can be so cavalier in relation to this matter,” he added.

Emphasising the importance of the appeals tribunal under the ATI law, Earle said the legislation states that the panel “shall consist of five members appointed by the governor general after consultation with the prime minister and the leader of the opposition”.

“It is something that is crying out for urgent and immediate response,” Earle contended, noting that he thought Morris Dixon would have brought this to the attention of the prime minister.

Attempts by The Gleaner to reach Morris Dixon yesterday afternoon were unsuccessful as her phone rang without answer.

Discussing attempts by his client to obtain information from a public body from earlier this year, Earle said a request was made in writing under the ATI law.

His client was told by the public body that she would hear from it by the end of 30 days, a timeline provided for under the law.

At the expiration of 30 days, the public body asked for a 30-day extension, which is also provided for under the law.

Earle said at the end of the 60-day period, the public body provided copies of the documents his client had requested, but they were heavily redacted, to the point where nothing that was received could be understood.

“You can’t make sense out if it at all, and you not getting the information, so to give me a document that has a title, but then when you look at the pages below, all you see is the word REDACTED, [it] really don’t make sense,” Earle told The Gleaner.

He said the public body did not provide a reason to his client explaining why it had redacted a substantial portion of the information presented.

Having received substantially redacted portions of the document, which are of no utility to his client, Earle said his client then requested an internal review, a process that is also set out in the ATI Act.

The internal review involves an appeal to the head of the government agency.

According to Earle, the agency told his client that it had sought the advice of the attorney general.

He said it seemed strange that the public body, without providing a reason for the massive redaction, proceeded to seek advice from the attorney general.

The attorney said his client then decided to make an appeal to the appeals tribunal set up under the ATI law.

After lodging an appeal to the tribunal in July, Earle said his client then discovered that the term of the last panel ended in February, and there had been no properly constituted body to carry out that role since then.

“Somebody has dropped the ball big time. How it is that that has been allowed to happen is beyond me,” he said.

Apart from a verbal response from Blake Brown, a technical assistant in the ministry, acknowledging receipt of the letter and indicating that a response would be forthcoming, Earle said no further correspondence has been made with him or his client despite two additional letters to the minister in August and September.

In the last letter sent to the minister on September 11, Earle said a copy had also been dispatched to the Secretariat of the Appeals Tribunal as well as Ambassador Rocky Meade, permanent secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister.

Earle said that with ‘Right to Know Week’ expected to be celebrated the week of September 23, it was ironic that strenuous attempts to obtain information have been met with little concern.

edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com