MPs’ assets declarations: Release the list of names, Court of Appeal orders Parliament
Bench affirms priority of RTI Act over Declaration of Assets and Liability Law
Emphasising the constitutional nature of the Right to Information introduced by the 19th Amendment, the Court of Appeal held on Tuesday that the Right to Information Law (2016) prevails over the Declarations of Assets and Liabilities Law (1975), affirming a 2021 decision of the Right to Information Commission (RTIC) on an appeal filed by journalist Chamara Sampath.
The journalist had filed an RTI request to the Secretary General of Parliament on 21.06.2018 asking for the list of parliamentarians who have handed over legally mandated declaration of assets and liabilities to the Speaker from 2010 to 2018. Parliament refused the request, saying that parliamentary privilege protects the ‘confidentiality’ of the list and that declarations were submitted to the Speaker over whom the Secretary General had no authority.
Upon appeal, the Secretary
General was directed to release the information by the RTIC observing that internal divisions between the Speaker and the Secretary General were extraneous to the RTI Act where Parliament was the named Public Authority. Parliamentary privilege was not accepted as a ground to refuse the information, given that the list related to the ‘carrying out of a legal duty by elected representatives which is of high public importance and public interest.’
Parliament appealed to the Court of Appeal arguing that the RTIC had ‘erred in fact and law’, among other reasons, by failing to consider that the requested information was ‘personal information,’ that privilege was relevant, and that any person can obtain information relevant to assets declarations only under the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law, No 1 of 1975 which overrode the RTI Act.
However in a 17-page judgement delivered by Justice Sampath B Abeykoon (with Justice P. Kumararatnam agreeing), the Court of Appeal dismissed the
objections as having no merit.
“As determined rightly by the Commission, I am of the view that providing the list of names of the Members of Parliament who have tendered their declaration of assets and liabilities as required by law is not disclosing the information they have provided in the declarations. I find that the argument advanced on that basis had also been an attempt
to frustrate the purposes of the RTI Act,” Justice Abeykoon said.
Explaining as to why it is important for the public to know whether parliamentarians have acted as required by the law or not, he observed that, “Members of Parliament are persons who are elected by the people and maintained by the people. They are expected to abide by the laws of the country at all times and provide examples for others to follow.”
Further, it was pointed out that, ‘Under the provisions of the Declaration of Assets and Liabilities Law, any person who comes under the provisions of the Law, fails to provide the relevant declaration of assets and liabilities as required, would be committing an offence punishable with a fine or imprisonment of either description or both such fine and imprisonment. It is therefore important for the public to know whether the relevant authorities have acted as required by law or not.”
“I am in no position to agree with the stand taken up by the appellants before the Commission that, if provided, the information requested would violate the rights and privileges of the Members of Parliament,” he noted.
The Court also declined to accept the argument of the Attorney General that the Secretary General of Parliament will be required to go on a ‘voyage of discovery’ to provide the information, holding that the information was “well within the Parliament of Sri Lanka”.
Observing that there cannot be any ‘fictional arguments’ to the effect that the Secretary General is ‘independent and separate from the Office of the Speaker’, the Bench found no basis to disagree with the determination of the Commission that, as a public authority, it is the Sri Lanka Parliament which is in ‘possession, custody and control of the information’ under Section 3 (1) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Secretary General, as the CEO of the institution, has a duty to inquire into and provide a list of the names as requested, with a reasonable effort, which would not amount to, ‘encroaching into the powers of the Speaker of Parliament,’ the Court held.
Assessing that the purpose of both the RTI Act and the Declarations of Assets and Liabilities Law is to combat corruption in public life, public authorities were warned by the Court not to ‘take cover’ under relevant Act or Acts in order to avoid providing information asked for by citizens.