Private legal practitioner Samson Lardy Anyenini says it is wrong to argue that the Right to Information law is not needed because a court ruling proves that information is already accessible.

He explained that access to information is still restricted by the state and that the ruling applied only to a specific case sent to court by pressure group, Citizens Ghana Movement.

Pro-transparency activists are celebrating a High Court ruling on Wednesday, ordering the State to release full details of a 'scandalous' $3.9million contract with Smarttys Management and Production company.

It emerged that the contract to rebrand 116 buses with pictures of the President and the former presidents was over-priced. The court ordered the state to release information on the contract to Citizen Ghana Movement.  

In a Facebook post Thursday, lawyer Anyenini, however, explained the value of the ruling, saying it makes the case for the passage of the RTI bill compelling.

“This decision is a real big deal for the fight for access to information” he wrote hailing the ruling.

Nonetheless, the host of news analysis program, Newsfile, said only a law such as the Right to Information law can enable citizens to get information from state agencies without resorting to a court ruling.

 

Below is the full Facebook post

This is intended simply to counter any suggestion that an RTI law is no longer necessary. I haven't heard the CG make any such argument, though.

The Human Rights Court vindicated the Fundamental Human Rights of the 7 named Applicants. But the benefits of the ultimate outcome are available to all citizens. The State (i.e Transport Ministry and AG) will be in contempt if it disregards or does not comply fully with the orders as regards this application.

Will the State (i.e Transport Ministry and AG) be in contempt of this or any other court if it repeats the act that provoked this application by refusing/declining to supply information to citizens on any transaction(s) now or in the future? NO!

The orders are directed specifically at the Transport Ministry and the AG – the Respondents in this case. The 14 days order counting from the day of filing of entry of judgment upon payment of the fees, correctly speaking is not an order that extends to any other entity.

It is advised, though, that other public entities (not parties to this suit) should endeavour to act in good faith to adopt the principle position of this case for purposes of furthering our democracy and avoiding similar suits in the absence of the RTI Law which stipulates all necessary steps from application to timelines and fees for accessing information including sanctions for breaches of the law.

I ask, won't any such refusal (repeat of what led to this embarrassing compulsion to act right by the people) in future lead rather to a fresh suit relying on this precedent? YES!

When that happens, will any other High Court be bound by this decision? NO!

Was this court exactly invited to and did it engage in interpretation of the Constitution which exercise is the exclusive preserve of the Supreme Court? NO!

Would a Supreme Court decision on same (declarations) have different implications? YES!

This decision is a real big deal for the fight for access to information and the constitutional right of and to assert same, but not a substitute for an RTI Law which will be binding on all including the courts.

The Constitution guarantees right to be registered and to vote in elections and referenda, does it provide the mechanics for voter registration and voting? NO!