Parliament Friday referred the Access to Information (ATI) Bill to its Legal Affairs and Media and Communication committees after the opposition side picked out several provisions which it said run counter to what is supposed to be the actual spirit of the would-be law.
Minister of Information Patricia Kaliati tabled the bill in the House after what has been described by some stakeholders as a very long wait.
But spokespersons for Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and the People’s Party (PP) on information argued that passing the bill in its current form will just be a useless venture.
But while agreeing with most of the observations which the opposition made, Kaliati defended the provision that those seeking the information will be required to pay a certain fee which has not been determined in the bill.
MCP’s Ezekiel Ching’oma and PP’s Agnes Nyalonje argued that among others, the fees provision and many others are defeating the whole purpose of access to information.
The two MPs also want the section that bars the retrospective application of the ATI law to be revised so that Malawians should be able to access the information “from time immemorial”.
Ching’oma further said MCP feels that the 15-days period within which an information holder is mandated to release the requested information is too much and went ahead to propose that it should be revised to 10 days.
On the fees, Ching’oma said: “The bill does not state the amount that those requiring the information will be paying and we are afraid that poor people who need the information will be denied access simply because they don’t have the money.
“This also shows that government is not committed to making sure access to information is realised in its entirety. The information should be accessed free of charge because the Constitution clearly states that every person shall have the right to access to information.”
His concerns were echoed by Nyalonje who further observed that the bill does not provide enough protection for whistleblowers as it provides stiffer penalties for them than it does for officers who withhold information without a valid reason.
“Enforcement of the bill will also be difficult in its current form because there is independent commission
that can assess relevant complaints. Furthermore, an access to information bill that does not provide for access in the archives is useless,” said Nyalonje before also proposing that the ATI should be referred to the relevant parliamentary committees.
In an interview outside the chamber, Kaliati said government does not have any problem with the suggestions put forward by the opposition, albeit claiming that they had wanted the bill to pass yesterday.
However, on the provision that proposes fees for accessing the information, Kaliati argued that there is nothing wrong with it “because one needs to pay if they want quality services.”
“Fifty two years after independence, we cannot be talking about information being accessed free because there are a lot of costs involved in making the information available. They are saying that Malawians are poor and will not be able to pay, when have they realised that?
“They [MCP] were busy demanding money from poor people when they were in power and now they have realised that Malawians are poor. Fifty years after independence, if one is looking for quality services, they must be ready to spend something. Even at the police, you pay if you want to get a report on something,” said Kaliati.
Meanwhile, the bill is expected to be brought again in the House when Parliament meets again in November this year or thereabout.
Leave a Reply