A GNA Feature by Albert Futukpor
Tamale, Dec. 31, GNA – The failure by some of the country’s most critical governance institutions to comply with the Right to Information (RTI) Law sends troubling signals about the state of transparency and accountability in the country.
It is especially disturbing that an institution such as the Parliamentary Service, which is part of the very body (Parliament) that debated, amended and passed the RTI Act, 2019 (Act 989), is amongst those fined for refusing or failing to release information requested by citizens.
When institutions mandated to uphold the rule of law, protect rights and safeguard public interest undermine a law designed to empower citizens, it raises fundamental questions about commitment to open governance and democratic accountability.
Records from the Right to Information Commission (RTIC) showed that since 2020 when the implementation of the RTI Law began more than 60 public and private institutions have been fined a cumulative amount of GHc5.6 million for breaching the RTI Law.
The records showed that Ghana Police Service alone paid GHc450,357.00 while the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) paid the heaviest fine of GHc1.365 million.
The Parliamentary Service paid GHS53,785, the Social Security and National Insurance Trust paid GHS200,000 and the Ministry of Education paid GHS260,000.
Other institutions including the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, the Judicial Service of Ghana, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Public Procurement Authority were yet to settle fines ranging from GHc30,000 to GHc100,000.
These are not ordinary institutions; they are central pillars of the country’s governance architecture and should be led by example rather than being repeatedly sanctioned.
Brief history about Ghana’s RTI Law
The RTI Law itself is the product of nearly two decades of sustained advocacy by civil society, media organisations and governance reform advocates.
From the early 2000s, campaigners argued that without a legal right to access public information, citizens could not effectively participate in governance or hold duty-bearers accountable.
When Parliament finally passed the RTI Law in 2019, there was high optimism that a new era of openness had dawned.
The law was expected to deepen democracy, curb corruption, and strengthen public trust in state institutions.
That optimism is now being tested by the very institutions that are supposed to operationalise the law.
Consequences of using institutions’ money to pay RTI fines
Besides the democratic implications, the financial consequences of non-compliance with the law are equally troubling.
Many of the sanctioned institutions are already grappling with constrained budgets, delayed releases of statutory funds, and mounting operational pressures.
Using taxpayers’ money to pay hefty fines means fewer resources will be left for core mandates such as security, justice delivery, education administration and social protection.
For institutions such as the Ghana Police Service, the Judicial Service of Ghana and the Ministry of Education, any amount used to pay RTI fines is money taken away from service delivery, infrastructure, logistics and personnel welfare.
In effect, citizens are punished twice: first by being denied information and second by having public funds wasted on avoidable penalties.
The case for individuals to pay the fines instead of the institutions
There is also a deeper systemic problem. The persistent refusal and failure to comply with RTI requests suggests that some public officers are emboldened by the knowledge that penalties will be borne by the institution but not by them personally.
As currently structured, the RTI Law only imposes fines on institutions that fail and or refuse to honour citizens’ information requests.
When the fines are absorbed into institutional budgets, individual information officers or responsible staff, who fail to comply with the RTI Law to honour requests for information from the public, face no personal consequence for their actions.
This creates a culture of impunity. If, however, the laws were structured to impose personal liability; financial or otherwise, officers, who willfully violate the RTI Law, compliance is likely to improve significantly.
Public officers will have a direct incentive to respect the law knowing that failure to do so will affect their own pockets and careers.
In many jurisdictions, personal liability for public officials, who breach RTI Laws is a key mechanism intended to prevent the waste of public funds on administrative fines.
For instance, in India, under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Central or State Information Commission can impose a personal penalty on a Public Information Officer for unreasonable delays or malafide denials.
The penalty is often deducted directly from the salary of the errant official rather than being paid from the institution’s budget.
A window to make the RTI Law sanction individuals
It is worth recalling that during the life of the last Parliament, efforts were made to pass a Legislative Instrument (LI) to provide detailed operational guidelines for implementing the RTI Law.
That process, however, did not materialise. There is a need to renew that process to urgently lay the LI before Parliament.
Such an LI or alternatively, an amendment to the RTI Act, should fundamentally rethink the current penalty regime.
Instead of imposing fines solely on public institutions, it should target the specific information officers or responsible staff, who fail to honour lawful information requests.
This shift will protect scarce public resources while strengthening individual accountability, which will ultimately benefit the state and the taxpayer.
In this case, public funds will not be wasted in paying RTI fines, but spent on projects and activities that will benefit the citizenry.
The way forward
In the end, the issue goes beyond fines and figures. It is about the kind of democracy the country aspires to build. If Parliament, the Ghana Police Service, the Judicial Service of Ghana and other accountability bodies themselves cannot respect a law meant to empower citizens, what moral right do they have to demand compliance from others?
Should taxpayers continue to pay fines because public officers willfully fail and or refuse to comply with the RTI Law, or is it time to enforce personal liability to save public funds and restore faith in the RTI regime?
The answer to this question may well determine whether the RTI Law becomes a living tool for transparency or just another noble statute, which is weakened by official indifference.
GNA
Edited by Eric K. Amoh/George-Ramsey Benamba