ACCESS TO INFORMATION - Carter Center · ing institutes, recognize the importance of strong access to information laws that are appropriately implemented and fully enforced. Reaching

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

A KEY TO DEMOCRACY

Edited by Laura Neuman

THE CARTER CENTER

November 2002

� 1 �

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 President Jimmy Carter

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Laura Neuman

Access to Government Information:An Overview of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Alasdair Roberts

Access to Information:How Is It Useful and How Is It Used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Richard Calland

The Carter Center Access to Information Project:Jamaica Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Laura Neuman

About the Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

The Carter Center At a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

� 2 �

ACCESS TO INFORMATION: A KEY TO DEMOCRACY

� 3 �

FOREWORD

FOREWORDBy Jimmy Carter

Times have changed. Public awareness about corruption and its corrosiveeffects has increased substantially since 1977 when I signed into law the

United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribery offoreign officials. Now many other countries are passing legislation to combatcorruption and increase public confidence in government. Access to informa-tion is a crucial element in the effort to reduce corruption, increase account-ability, and deepen trust among citizens and their governments.

Public access to government-held information allows individuals to betterunderstand the role of government and the decisions being made on theirbehalf. With an informed citizenry, governments can be held accountable fortheir policies, and citizens can more effectively choose their representatives.Equally important, access to information laws can be used to improve the livesof people as they request information relating to health care, education, andother public services.

The Carter Center has collaborated in Jamaica and other countries to helpinform the public debate about the need for strong access to information laws,to bring together the government and diverse sectors of society to discuss andpromote the issue, to share the international experience, and to assist inovercoming implementation obstacles. We encourage every nation to ensurethat citizens can exercise their right to know about the decisions of theirgovernment, and we stand ready to assist.

� 4 �


� 5 �

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTIONLaura Neuman

Knowledge is power, andtransparency is the remedy to thedarkness under which corruption

and abuse thrives.

Citizens and their leaders around the worldhave long recognized the risk of corruption.

Corruption diverts scarce resources from necessarypublic services, and instead puts it in the pocketsof politicians, middlemen and illicit contractors,while ensuring that the poor do not receive thebenefits of this “system”. The consequences ofcorruption globally have been clear: unequalaccess to public services and justice, reducedinvestor confidence, continued poverty, and evenviolence and overthrow of governments. A highlevel of corruption is a singularly pernicioussocietal problem that also undermines the rule oflaw and citizen confidence in democratic institu-tions.

In addition, citizens around the world continueto struggle to meet their basic needs of food,clothing, and adequate shelter and to exercisetheir broader socio-economic rights. More than1.2 billion people world-wide live on less than $1per day,1 1.7 billion arewithout access to cleanwater, and 3.3 billionpeople live withoutadequate sanitationfacilities.2 Althoughnearly 150 counties haveratified the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, Freedom House finds that 106countries continue to restrict its citizen’s impor-tant civil and political freedoms.3

Knowledge is power, and transparency is theremedy to the darkness under which corruptionand abuse thrives. Democracy depends on aknowledgeable citizenry whose access to a broadrange of information enables them to participatefully in public life, help determine priorities forpublic spending, receive equal access to justice,and hold their public officials accountable. When

the government and quasi-governmental agenciesperform under a veil of secrecy, people are deniedthe right to know about public affairs, and thepress is only able to speculate and subsist onrumors.

Poor public access to information feeds corrup-tion. Secrecy allows back-room deals to deter-mine public spending in the interests of the fewrather than the many. Lack of information im-pedes citizens’ ability to assess the decisions oftheir leaders, and even to make informed choicesabout the individuals they elect to serve as theirrepresentatives.

Although perhaps most often considered in thefight against corruption, access to information isequally critical for citizens’ capacity to exercisetheir rights and to uphold the responsibilities andaccountability of their leaders. Access to informa-

tion laws allow individu-als and groups to under-stand the policies withwhich the governmentmakes determinationsrelating to health,education, housing andinfrastructure projectsand the factual basis for

such decisions. Armed with such knowledge,citizens around the world are effectuating changethat allows them to improve their living standardsand better their lives.

Increasingly, government and civil society areseeing access to information as the key to fightingcorruption and enhancing the public’s capacity toexercise their rights. Presently, there are over 45countries with access to information laws, withdozens of others on the verge. Unfortunately, theLatin America and Caribbean region lags behindWestern Europe, Central and Eastern Europe and

� 6 �


“As a rule, he or she who has themost information will have the

greatest success in life”

even Asia in the coverage of access to informationand implementation. Nevertheless, the trendtoward new legislation continues as developed anddeveloping nations, as well as international fund-ing institutes, recognize the importance of strongaccess to information laws that are appropriatelyimplemented and fully enforced. Reaching thisgoal is complex, and we hope that the followingchapters provide the reader with a number of ideasfor ways in which to do so.

In Access to Government Information: An Over-view of the Issues, a paper originally written for TheCarter Center’s Transparency for Growth Confer-ence in 1999, Dr. Alasdair Roberts sets out theinternational principles that govern many accessto information laws. This article, premised on thenotion that wholesale secrecy in government is nolonger acceptable, includes a discussion aboutwhich governmentinstitutions should becovered by the law, whenis it appropriate for thewithholding of informa-tion, how costs can becontrolled such that fullimplementation may be areality, and the best mechanisms for enforcement.Dr. Roberts concludes with a reminder that theeffectiveness of the law will only be determinedthrough its use, and he encourages civil societyorganizations to build internal capacity so thatthey can take advantage of this important tool.

Richard Calland describes the successful use ofaccess to information acts in Africa, Asia, andEastern European States. Access to Information:How Is It Useful and How Is It Used? examinescases in which access to information laws havebeen used to fight discrimination, inform demo-cratic debate, influence policy decisions andensure the proper flow of vital resources. Throughan emphasis on the experiences in other parts ofthe world, Mr. Calland presents a valuable guideto passage, implementation and enforcement of avigorous access to information act and a persua-

sive argument for utilizing “the right to know”approach in developing legislation.

The Carter Center, through its work in Ja-maica, learned a number of lessons relating topassage and implementation of an access to infor-mation act. The Carter Center Access to Informa-tion Project: Jamaica Case Study follows the projectfrom its inception in 1999 through the first stagesof legislative implementation, chronicling thesuccesses and obstacles that the Jamaican govern-ment and civil society faced. I describe the needfor political will and broad public debate, as wellas the burden shift that occurs from governmentto civil society once the law is passed and proce-dures in place.

Disreali stated, “as a rule, he or she who has themost information will have the greatest success in

life.” Success, if mea-sured as the increase intransparency in govern-ment, and thus decreasein corruption, and thecitizen’s capacity toexercise her rights, isachievable through the

passage, implementation and enforcement of astrong access to information act. Access to infor-mation is a cornerstone of democracy.

This publication draws on the experiences andtalents of many persons. I would like to thank theauthors for sharing their knowledge and time withus to make this both a scholarly and practicalresource. My colleagues Dr. Shelley McConnell,Daniel Gracia, Amy Sterner and, especially, Dr.Jennifer McCoy Director of the Americas Programassisted greatly in the conceptualization andimplementation of this guidebook. Alex Little, amember of The Carter Center’s Conflict Resolu-tion Program, spent his own valuable personaltime in creating the layout. Finally, I would liketo thank our tireless translators for the Spanishedition of this publication; Paula Colmegna andDr. David Dye, as well as Americas Program intern

� 7 �

INTRODUCTION

Marcela Guerrero for their time in painstakinglyassuring that the author’s voice and meaning washeard in the translation.

1 World Bank. 2000. World Development Report,Washington, Table 1.1.

2 Statement of Miloon Kothari, Special Rapporteur onadequate housing as a component of the right to anadequate standard of living to the Third United NationConference on the Least Developed Countries, Brussels14-20 May, 2001.

3 UNDP Human Development Report 2002, p. 10.

� 8 �


� 9 �

ACCESS TO INFORMATION: OVERVIEW OF ISSUES

ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION:AN OVERVIEW OF ISSUES

Dr. Alasdair Roberts†

†This paper was first written for The Carter Center’s Transparency for Growth Conference, May 1999.

WHY ACCESS RIGHTS MATTER

A right of access to information held withingovernment institutions is usually justified as

an instrument for promoting political participa-tion. It has been argued that access is necessary forthe realization of the basic rights to freedom ofopinion and expression that are guaranteed in theUnited Nations Declaration on Human Rights,subsequent human rights declarations, and manynational constitutions. A related but strongerargument is that access is essential for persons torealize their basic right to participate in thegoverning of their country and live under a systembuilt on informed consent of the citizenry.1 In anystate, and particularly in states where the policy-analysis capabilities of civil society are poorlydeveloped, political participation rights cannot beexercised effectively without access to governmentinformation.

These arguments are sound but incomplete. Injurisdictions where access laws have been adopted,requests often do not seek information about thehigher-level policy and management functions ofgovernment. Instead, the most frequent users ofaccess laws tend to be individuals or businessesseeking information relating to administrativeactivities that immediately affect them. For ex-ample, individuals seek information about deci-sions to deny benefits, while businesses seekinformation about adverse regulatory or procure-ment decisions. In most cases, therefore, a right ofaccess is more accurately justified as an instrumentfor discouraging arbitrary state action and protect-ing the basic right to due process and equal pro-tection of the law.2

Access laws play an important role in reducingcorruption within government institutions. Bymaking available information about procurementprocesses and successful bids, access laws make itmore difficult for officials to engage in unfaircontracting practices. Similarly, access to informa-tion about decisions regarding the conferral orwithholding of other benefits by governmentinstitutions, or regulatory or policing decisions,reduces the probability that such decisions will betaken for improper reasons. Access laws may alsomake it more difficult for senior officials to makelarger policy decisions that are not supported bysound analysis. Access to information about theformulation of policy can reveal instances inwhich policy decisions were taken without carefulconsideration, and instances in which decisionscontradicted advice provided by professionalswithin the public service.

Over the last thirty years, many governmentshave formally acknowledged a right of access toinformation. In some instances, governments haveadopted administrative codes that establish a rightof access, although the more common approach isto give access rights the force of law. A few na-tions, including South Africa, have entrenched aright of access in their constitutions. Formalrecognition of access rights is now essential ifinstitutions hope to maintain popular legitimacy.The burden was once on proponents of accessrights to make a case for transparency; today, theburden is on governments to make the case forsecrecy.

� 10 �


The burden was once on proponents ofaccess rights to make a case for

transparency; today, the burden is onthe governments to make the case for

secrecy.

LIMITS TO ACCESS RIGHTS MUST BEDEFINED

Access laws typically establish a presumptionthat citizens have a right to inspect informa-

tion within public institutions. However, nogovernment recognizes an unqualified right ofaccess to information. Before adopting an accesslaw, three questions - all pertaining to the scope ofthe access right - mustbe settled. First, whatinstitutions should besubject to an accessright? Second, underwhat circumstances isan institution that issubject to an accesslaw justified in with-holding information? Finally, what steps canproperly be taken to moderate the cost of adminis-tering an access law?

What institutions should be subject to an accesslaw?

The rule traditionally used to define the limitsof access law is that the law should include public,but not private, organizations. The rule has alwayshad important exceptions. For example, few lawsestablish a right of access to information held bylegislators or legislative officers. The rationale isthat the operations of legislatures are sufficientlytransparent that a right of access is unnecessary.Some laws also exclude state-owned enterprises(SOEs) engaged in commercial activities, on thepremise that they are subject to market disciplineand that increased transparency would put themat a competitive disadvantage. Exclusion of SOEsis often disputed, particularly when they havemixed mandates or hold dominant positions in themarketplace.

The idea that private organizations should notbe subject to access law is also being questioned.The usual argument has been that private enter-prises “do not exercise the executive power ofgovernment” or are regulated by “market forces

and customer relations.”3 This argument hasbecome more tenuous as governments haveincreased contracting-out and privatization ofstate assets. Citizens worry that inherently govern-mental work may be cloaked by the principle ofcommercial confidentiality. Anomalies may alsoarise. For example, a publicly-run school or prisonmight be held to a higher standard of transparencythan its privately-run counterpart.

Legislatures havehad difficulty indefining the circum-stances in whichaccess rights shouldbe imposed on privateenterprises. Florida’saccess law includes

private entities “acting on behalf of a publicagency,” but administrators and courts have notfound this to be a helpful standard for decidingwhether a contractor should be subject to accessrequirements.4 The Australian Law ReformCommission is skeptical about the possibility ofdefining a precise standard in law and suggeststhat a better approach is to allow contractinginstitutions to make judgments about access rightson a case-by-case basis. The new British access lawtakes a similar approach, giving the Secretary ofState the discretion to include private enterprisesthat “exercise functions of a public nature” orwhich “provide under contract made with a publicauthority any service whose provision is a functionof that authority.”5 This is unlikely to be a satis-factory solution for critics who believe that publicinstitutions sometimes share the contractor’sdesire to preserve secrecy.

In several jurisdictions, proposals have beenmade for inclusion of privately-owned utilitiesunder access laws. These proposals rest on theargument that access rights can provide a usefulcheck against the tendency of monopolies toabuse their power. In fact, the prospect of an abuseof power - regardless of whether that power isacquired through statute or market imperfections— may be a better test for the imposition of access

� 11 �


rights than whether the assets of an organizationare publicly or privately owned. It is noteworthythat the United States has imposed a limited rightof access to information held by private entities incompetitive markets - such as credit bureaus andpost-secondary educational institutions - wherethere is thought to be an imbalance of powerbetween those entities and citizens.6 A similarright may be imposed on private healthcareproviders.

When can information be withheld byinstitutions that are subject to an access law?

Every access law identifies exemptions to theright of access - that is, provisions that permitinstitutions to withhold certain kinds of informa-tion. The need for exemptions is not disputed, andin some instances there is wide agreement aboutthe appropriate definition of exemptions. How-ever, there is no consensus about the definition ofexemptions when information relates to importantstate interests.

The least-contentious exemptions are also themost frequently used. These provisions balanceaccess rights against the privacy rights of otherindividuals and the right to commercial confiden-tiality. For example, laws typically allow institu-tions to deny access to information about otherpersons if the release of that information would bean unreasonable invasion of their privacy. Theselaws recognize that there are circumstances inwhich personal information should be releaseddespite the invasion of privacy, such as a threat topublic health or safety. In such circumstances,other persons are given a right to appeal theinstitution’s decision to release their personalinformation. Similar arrangements are used whereindividuals request access to confidential informa-tion supplied to government by businesses.

Greater controversy arises over exemptionsdesigned to protect important state interests.Here, governments generally push for wide discre-tion to deny requests for information. Critics arguethat these broadly-defined provisions allow gov-

ernments to evade accountability and underminecitizens’ ability to exercise their political participa-tion rights.

For example, access laws vary widely in theirtreatment of information relating to internaldeliberations about policy or the management ofpublic institutions. All laws give some kind ofprotection to this information, on the premisethat secrecy is essential to ensure “open, frankdiscussions on policy matters.”7 But the degree ofprotection varies widely. U.S. law obliges institu-tions to show that disclosure would cause injury tothe quality of government decision-making.However, the Canadian law protects these recordseven when there is no evidence that harm wouldbe caused by disclosure, and precludes indepen-dent review of decisions to withhold certainCabinet records.

The British law, proposed in 1999, takes amixed approach, adopting a blanket exemption ofall material relating to “the formulation or devel-opment of government policy” without proof ofharm, and also an exemption of informationwhere disclosure would be likely to inhibit “thefree and frank exchange of views” or would “other-wise prejudice the effective conduct of publicaffairs.”8 The Australian law also allows Cabinetministers to issue “conclusive certificates” thatlimit the ability of tribunals to review their deci-sions to withhold this information.

Governments are also reluctant to discloseinformation relating to national security, defense,and international relations. The American ap-proach requires institutions to show that disclo-sure of classified material would cause harm tonational security. However, critics argue that thisrelatively narrow exemption is weakened inpractice by the diffusion of authority to makeclassification decisions and a tendency to “over-classify” records.9 The laws of Ireland and NewZealand require proof that harm will be caused bydisclosure but allow ministers to issue certificatespreventing review of their decisions to denyaccess. Australia permits non- disclosure without

� 12 �


The American approach requiresinstitutions to show that disclosure of

classified material would cause harm tonational security.

proof of harm and also allows ministers to issuecertificates limiting review. The 1999 Britishproposal denies any right of access to informationheld by some security and intelligence agenciesand allows ministers to issue certificates limitingreview of decisions to withhold informationrelating to national security that is held by otheragencies.10

There is similar variation in the treatment ofinformation relating to other state interests. InIreland and New Zealand, ministers may issuecertificates limiting access to information aboutlaw enforcement. The British government pro-posed to deny anyright of access tocertain law enforce-ment records; how-ever, this approach hasbeen criticized asunnecessarily restric-tive.11 Some laws alsoexempt information if disclosure would underminegovernment’s capacity to manage the economy.

What steps can be taken to control the cost ofadministering an access law?

Governments sometimes argue that access lawsimpose an unreasonable administrative burden. Abroadly-worded request for information mayrequire public servants to spend many hourssearching for records, consulting about the use ofexemptions, and removing exempted informationfrom records. Few thorough studies of administra-tive costs have been undertaken, although a 1996study by the Canadian government estimated thatthe average cost of responding to informationrequests was US$600.12 Estimates such as thismust be taken with a grain of salt. The cost ofcompliance can be increased by inadequate proce-dures or excessive internal deliberations aboutdisclosure of information.

Nevertheless, the cost of responding to accessrequests may be substantial, and governments may

legitimately impose controls - sometimes known as“gateway provisions” - to regulate the inflow ofrequests. One approach is to prohibit requests thatare frivolous, vexatious, or repetitive. This restric-tion is not problematic so long as an effectiveroute of appeal is available in cases where it ismisapplied. However, such restrictions are usedinfrequently and unlikely to have a significanteffect on administrative costs.

A more effective method of regulating demandis through application fees and charges for process-ing access requests. Governments have sometimessuggested that fees should be calculated on a “cost-

recovery” basis, butthis is inadvisable. Afee schedule designedfor recovery of a largeproportion of admin-istrative costs woulddeter all but a handfulof requests. High fees

also disadvantage poorer individuals and organiza-tions.13 Several governments have attempted toreduce such inequities by developing distinct feeschedules for different classes of individuals ordifferent classes of information.

MECHANISMS FOR ENFORCING ACCESSRIGHTS MUST BE ESTABLISHED

Because institutions may have an ingrained“culture of secrecy,” an external mechanism

for encouraging compliance with access law isnecessary. Access laws typically adopt one of threeapproaches to enforcement:

1) Individuals are given a right to make an“administrative appeal” to another official withinthe institution to which the request was made. Ifthe administrative appeal fails, individuals mayappeal to a court or tribunal, which may orderdisclosure of information.

2) Individuals are given a right of appeal toan independent ombudsman or information

� 13 �


commissioner, who makes a recommendationabout disclosure. If the institution ignores therecommendation, an appeal to a court is permit-ted.

3) Individuals are given a right of appeal toan information commissioner who has the powerto order disclosure of information. No furtherappeal is provided for in the access law, althoughthe commissioner’s actions remain subject tojudicial review forreasonableness.

All of these ap-proaches require anindependent judiciarythat is prepared tomake and enforcerulings against the government. Of the threeapproaches, the latter two are clearly preferable.Administrative appeals are unlikely to producesatisfactory outcomes in contentious cases wheresenior officials may already have participated indiscussions about disclosure, and a further appealto court may be expensive and time-consuming.Some observers say that the second approach isalso preferable to the third. They argue thatgovernments rarely ignore recommendations, andthat commissioners with quasi-judicial responsi-bilities may feel obliged to avoid public advocacyof access rights. Proponents of the third approachargue that it provides a quicker and less costlyremedy in cases where recommendations are notfollowed.

All approaches share two weaknesses. The firstis the attempt to promote compliance by address-ing individual complaints. If governments system-atically abuse access rights, commissioners may beoverwhelmed with appeals, straining their abilityto resolve complaints promptly. A power to takeaction against institutions that repeatedly violatethe law may be desirable. Commissioners shouldalso have the right to receive statistical reportsfrom institutions that allow them to monitorinstitutional compliance. A second weakness is

the inability to review and modify fee schedules.The design of fee schedules has been viewed as anadministrative matter that can be left to theexecutive branch of government. This is a mis-take: fee schedules play an important role indetermining how access laws are used, and shouldbe subject to external review.

No external enforcement mechanism will beeffective in controlling institutions that are

determined to thwartan access law. Offi-cials can engage informs of non-compli-ance - such as hidingor destruction ofrecords - which arenot easily detected.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of an access lawdepends on a professional public service that isprepared to comply with the law, even while ittests the limits of the law in daily practice.

CIVIL SOCIETY MUST HAVE THECAPACITY TO EXERCISE ACCESSRIGHTS

Access laws will be ineffective if citizens andnon-governmental organizations lack the

capacity to exercise their right of access. In somesmaller jurisdictions, for example, the media areless likely to use access laws because they cannotafford to hire skilled reporters or support lengthyinvestigations of public institutions. The com-plaint by officials that media requests focus ontrivialities such as travel expenses is partly ex-plained by the fact that these requests are uncom-plicated, inexpensive, and likely to generate aquick story. Advocacy groups are also unlikely totake full advantage of access laws if they lackresources to maintain a staff and pursue complexrequests.

Similarly, access laws will not be used if ele-ments of civil society are incapable of acting onthe information obtained through access requests.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of an accessto information law depends on aprofessional public service that is

prepared to comply with the law...

� 14 �


A fettered press, which faces legal penalties orpersecution for news reports that are critical ofgovernment, does not have a strong incentive touse an access law. Advocacy groups are less likelyto use an access law if there are no channels foreffective political action. Individuals and busi-nesses will request information about the adminis-trative activities of government only if remediesare available for cases in which officials have actedinappropriately. In short, an access law is unlikelyto be used extensively unless other steps are takento build capacity within civil society and increaseits influence over the policymaking and adminis-trative processes of government.

1 See Articles 19 and 21 of the United Nations Declara-tion of Human Rights.

2 See Articles 7, 10, and 12 of the United NationsDeclaration of Human Rights.

3 Australian Law Reform Commission, Open Govern-ment: A Review of the Federal Freedom of InformationAct, 1982. Report 77, December 1995, Section 15.

4 Florida Public Records Law, s. 119.011(2), FloridaStatutes.

5 United Kingdom, Home Office, Freedom of InformationUnit, Freedom of Information Bill, May 1999, section 2.

6 House of Representatives, Committee on GovernmentReform, A Citizen’s Guide on Using the Freedom ofInformation Act, H. Rep. 106-50 (March 1999), p. 6.

7 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 151 (1975).

8 United Kingdom Freedom of Information Bill, section28.

9 Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Secrecy. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1998.

10 United Kingdom Freedom of Information Bill, sections18 and 19.

11 United Kingdom Freedom of Information Bill, section25. House of Commons, Select Committee on PublicAdministration, Report on the White Paper on Freedomof Information, June 1998, Paragraphs 24-30.

12 Treasury Board Secretariat, Review of Costs Associatedwith ATIP Legislation, April 1996.

13 For an illustration of the effect which fee increases canhave on the use of access law, see: Alasdair Roberts,Ontario’s Freedom of Information Law: Assessing the Impactof the Harris Government Reforms. Working Paper, Schoolof Policy Studies, May 1999.

� 15 �

ACCESS TO INFORMATION: HOW IS IT USEFUL AND HOW IS IT USED?

ACCESS TO INFORMATION:HOW IS IT USEFUL AND HOW IS IT USED?

Dr. Richard Calland†

†A version of this paper was first published in the guidebook Fostering Transparency and Preventing Corruption in Jamaica,edited by Laura Neuman and published by The Carter Center, 2002.

The scene: a small village in rural India. Thewhole of the village has gathered to listen as

public records are being read out. A villager islisted in the public record as having rented out hisplough to the government-sponsored irrigationproject. “No,” he says, “I did not do that. I wasaway in Delhi at my cousin’s wedding at thattime.” There is laughter, as well as outrage, aspeople immediately discover how they have beentricked and how public money has been siphonedaway from them and their village. More falseinformation is revealed: Examples such as itemsfor bills for transport of materials for 6km when, infact, the real distance is just 1km. A worker,employed according to government records on theconstruction of a new canal, stands up and asks:“What canal?” Workers involved in the buildingof houses confirm that fifty bags of cement, notone hundred, were supplied and used. At the endof the public hearing the chant goes up: “What dowe want? Information. What do we want? Infor-mation.”

INTRODUCTION

Meaningful participation in democratic processesrequires informed participants. Secrecy reduces theinformation available to the citizenry, hobbling theirability to participate meaningfully.

Joseph Stiglitz, Former Senior Vice-President and ChiefEconomist of the World Bank1

The Right to Know

We live in an “information age.” There hasbeen an explosion in the amount of infor-

mation held by governments, companies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and othercitizen organizations. Information is power. Veryoften, the more you know, the more you are ableto influence events and people. For citizens andcitizen organizations, it is an age of opportunityand immense challenge. As a sector, civil societymust ensure that it does not get left behind.Information is vital for individual citizens, com-munities, and citizen’s organizations if they are tofully participate in the democratic process.

Information is not just a necessity for people –it is an essential part of good corporate and stategovernance. Weak companies and bad govern-ments depend on secrecy to survive. Secrecyallows inefficiency, wastefulness and corruption tothrive.

In terms of government, access to informationallows people to scrutinize the actions of theirgovernment and is the basis for informed debate ofthose actions. For the private sector, access togood information is vital for tendering, for opencompetition, and for an efficient marketplace ofideas and products.

When countries pass access to informationlaws, they join an international bandwagon, onethat has gathered great momentum in recentyears. But the international experience shows thatfor an access to information law to work well inpractice and to be useful to both government andcitizens and their civil society organizations, itshould meet a number of key principles. Thepurpose of this paper, therefore, is to:

� 16 �


Often, the decision to protect peoples’right to access information has been

part of a wider process ofdemocratization.

1. Look at access to information law from apractical user’s perspective and try andanswer the questions:

♦ What is the value of access to informationlaw?

♦ How can an access to information law beused?

2. Set out the main principles that need to beadhered to, if the law is to be effective inpractice and valuable to its users.

In doing so, a number of case studies are used toillustrate the potential value of an access toinformation law for allsectors of society. Inparticular, because ofSouth Africa’s historyand context, a moredetailed comparisonwith its law, thePromotion of Accessto Information Act2000, is provided.

The Global Trend Towards GreaterTransparency

It is not, perhaps, immediately obvious howand why the right to access information is soimportant. But the case of the Indian State ofRajasthan, where they say “The Right to Know,the Right to Live,” helps make this crystal clear.Deep in the rural communities, a peoples’ move-ment– the Mazdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan(MKSS) organization– has shown how informa-tion can empower ordinary people and improvetheir lives. Historically, local people have haddifficulty getting paid the minimum wage. Atelection time, politicians would make promisesabout the minimum wage in return for votes, butthese promises were rarely turned into reality.Campaigners realized that it was only by obtainingthe relevant documentation, in particular the

muster rolls (a list of persons employed and wagespaid), that they could be successful. The right toinformation and the right to survive thus becameunited in peoples’ minds.

Now Rajasthan, in common with most states inIndia, has a Freedom of Information law. Itsgovernment recognized that it was better to createa law that would affirm the right to access toinformation and provide a system to underpin thisright. This is part of a global trend; in the pasttwenty years many countries have passed freedomof information laws.

Often, the decision to protect peoples’ right toaccess information has been part of a wider process

of democratisation.Since the end of theCold War and Com-munist rule at the endof the 1980s, therehas been a rush topass such laws inCentral and EasternEurope. Amongst

others, Bulgaria, Bosnia, the Czech Republic,Hungary and Slovakia have all passed laws in thelast decade.

In the East, there is a similar trend. The Philip-pines recognized the right to access informationheld by the State relatively early, passing a Codeof Conduct and Ethical Standards for PublicOfficials and Employees in 1987. Thailand passedits Official Information Act in 1997, and similarlaws have been passed in Japan and South Korea.

Most Western European countries, as well aslonger-established democracies such as the UnitedStates, Sweden, Canada and Australia, all haveaccess to information laws. And, in Africa, Nige-ria is soon to follow South Africa’s example bypassing its own Act.

� 17 �


INFORMATION, DEMOCRACY ANDACCOUNTABILTY

For some reason, many governments appear tothink that they can only govern effectively if theyoperate in total secrecy and their citizens do not knowwhat they are doing, supposedly on behalf of the largerpopulation. African governments are taking the lead inthis approach to governance and in many countries inthe region, secrecy in government has attained thestatus of state policy. It is perhaps the result of amessiah complex which imbues political leaders with afeeling that only they know what is best for the peopleand that citizens cannot be trusted to make importantdecisions on issues that affect their lives or how theywant to be governed.

Edetaen Ojo, Executive Director: Media Rights Agenda,Lagos, Nigeria, October 2000.

THE CASE OF SOUTH AFRICA

Secrecy is a function as well as an effect ofundemocratic rule. Throughout the apartheid

era, South Africa’s increasingly paranoid whiteminority government suppressed access to infor-mation— on social, economic, and securitymatters— in an effort to stifle opposition to itspolicies of racial supremacy. Security operationswere shrouded in secrecy. Government officialsfrequently responded to queries either with hostil-ity or misinformation. Press freedom was habitu-ally compromised, either through censorship ofstories or through the banning and confiscation ofpublications. Information became a crucialresource for the country’s liberation forces, andtheir allies in international solidarity movements,as they sought to expose the brutality of theapartheid regime and hasten its collapse.

Consequently, opposition groups came to seeunrestricted access to information as a cornerstoneof transparent, participatory and accountablegovernance. This consensus was ultimately cap-tured in South Africa’s new constitution. Ademocratic parliament then gave further shape to

the right of access to information by passingenabling legislation– a process in which civilsociety organizations played an unusually influen-tial role.

One of the most important aspects of theinterim constitution that guided South Africa’stransition to democracy was the introduction of aBill of Rights designed to ensure equal protectionfor a broad range of human, socio-economic andcivil rights, irrespective of race, gender, sexualorientation, disability, belief, and other factors.2

Among the rights upheld was that of access topublicly-held information. Section 23 of theinterim constitution stated: “Every person has theright of access to all information held by the stateor any of its organs in any sphere of government inso far as that information is required for theexercise or protection of any of their rights.”

By entrenching an independent right of accessto information, rather than leaving it to be pro-tected by the right to freedom of expression as hasgenerally been the case in international humanrights instruments, the drafters underscored itssignificance in South Africa’s constitutional order.

Following the historic general election of 1994,the interim constitution’s broad right of access toinformation was expanded further. Section 32(1)of the final constitution, enacted by the NationalAssembly in 1996, guarantees “everyone...theright of access to any information held by the stateand any information that is held by anotherperson and that is required for the exercise orprotection of any rights.” Not only is the right ofaccess to publicly-held information no longerqualified by the stipulation that the informationbe needed for the exercise or protection of a right,but a qualified right of access to information hasalso been established with respect to privatebodies and individuals. The legislation was,however, permitted to include “reasonable mea-sures to alleviate the administrative and financialburden on the state.” To balance, in other words,the state’s potentially competing obligations to

� 18 �


“Information is the life-blood of ourtimes; we need it to survive and to

prosper, almost as much as we needoxygen to live.”

protect citizens’ information rights and to providefair, efficient, and cost-effective administration.

THE SOUTH AFRICAN LAW

The Promotion of Access to Information Billreaches out towards new horizons. It captures both thespirit and the necessity of the age in which we live.Information is the life-blood of our times; we need it tosurvive and to prosper, almost as much as we needoxygen to live. This new law does something trulyinnovative and truly radical. It aspires not only toenhance an information rich society, but also todemocratize the use, ownership, application and accessto information. If information represents power, thenwe must ensure that it is not monopolised by the richand powerful.

Priscilla Jana ANC MP, National Assembly, Feb. 2000.

The South African Promotion of Access toInformation Act 2000 (POATIA) begins by

“recognising that the system of government inSouth Africa before 27 April 1994 resulted in asecretive and unresponsive culture in public andprivate bodies whichoften led to an abuseof power and humanrights violations.” Aswas noted in thesection above on thehistory of the Act, theright to access toinformation is a part of the new set of humanrights designed to prevent a repeat of history andto ensure that South Africans can fulfill theirpotential as human beings.

The Objects of South Africa’s Promotion ofAccess to Information Act 2000

1. To give effect to the Constitutional Right toAccess Information (section 32 of theConstitution), and to generally promotetransparency, accountability and effectivegovernance of all public and private bodies,by establishing procedures to do so.

2. To enable requesters to obtain records heldby the State and by private bodies as swiftly,inexpensively and effortlessly as reasonablypossible in a way that balances this rightwith the need for certain justifiable limita-tions, such as privacy, commercial confiden-tiality and effective, efficient and goodgovernance.

In addition, the Act’s objects include theempowerment and education of everyone so as to:

1. understand their right to access information2. understand the functions and operation of

public bodies3. effectively scrutinize, and participate in,

decision-making by public bodies that affecttheir rights.

A System for Accessing Information

Beyond the fleshing out of the right to accessrecords, the South African (SA) Act, in meticu-lous detail, creates a system for using the law. Thisis vital for its success. There is no point in having

a law that provides forthe right to access toinformation, if there isnot at the same time aclear and workablesystem of mechanismsto enable citizens touse the law.

Hence, the SA law requires government toensure that a manual is produced. This is a crucialobligation, as it will provide both government andthe requester citizen with a “road map” of therecords held by that part of government. If themanual is well produced, it will enable govern-ment to categorise records and, thus, facilitateautomatic disclosure or publication, as is encour-aged by the Act. In addition, the InformationOfficer must ensure that the relevant contactdetails are included in the telephone directory.

� 19 �


There is no point in having a law thatprovides for the right to access toinformation, if there is not at thesame time a clear and workablesystem of mechanisms to enable

citizens to use the law.

In particular, the Information Officer mustdecide which records shall be automaticallypublished. The evidence from other countries isthat the more recordsthat are automaticallypublished or disclosed,the easier and cheaperit is for government toadminister the law.

Furthermore, deputyinformation officersmust be appointed insufficient number to“render the public body as accessible as reasonablypossible for requesters of its records.” The SA Actenvisages that deputy information officers will bethe operational hubs of the new system of openinformation, reporting to the Information Officerwho, in most cases, is likely to be the most seniorperson in the department or body (often theDirector-General).

The SA law requires that a prescribed form beused so as to “provide sufficient particulars toenable an official of the public body concerned toidentify the record or records requested.” Withthis and with the request in general, the deputyinformation officers are under an explicit duty toassist requesters, thus enabling the requester tocomply with the request procedures.

Most importantly, the SA Act provides forclear time limits: a decision must be made within30 days (though the transitional rules extend thisperiod for years one and two to 90 and 60 daysrespectively). The Act sets out the specificgrounds for extending the period of the decisionand declares a deemed refusal, where the timelimit for making a decision is not met.

Private Information: The “Horizontal” Right toKnow

Powerfully, the South African law also createsthe mechanism whereby an individual citizen may

access privately-held information, so that he orshe may meaningfully exercise other rights in theBill of Rights. This applies especially to the group

of rights in the consti-tution known as socio-economic rights, suchas the rights to ad-equate health care,education and cleanenvironment.

It is also importantfor the right to equal-ity. The experience in

other parts of the world has shown that in equalitycases it is very difficult to prove discriminationdue to a lack of evidence. Access to informationwill facilitate such a claim by allowing an openassessment of all the facts surrounding the allegeddiscrimination. Equally importantly, therefore, ifsuch activity is open to scrutiny it may also serveas a deterrent to the continued violation of rights.

In terms of sectors such as banking and pen-sions, the opportunity to use the legislation toexpose unlawful or unjust policies such as “red-lining” now exist. In the realm of consumerprotection there will be the opportunity to ask forinformation relating to safety testing. With prod-uct pricing– drugs, for example– there is theopportunity to get information relating to theproduction costs and profit margins and how theseaffect affordability and accessibility. In the sphereof the environment, there will be an opportunityto elicit the information pertaining to pollutiontesting. For example, a factory may be emittingpollution, causing endemic ill health in a commu-nity. It may be important, therefore, to access thetesting records of the company. Science andindustry develop thousands of new kinds of poten-tially dangerous consumer products, many ofwhich are extremely complicated, leaving con-sumers puzzled and confused. Consumers’ goodhealth and safety are often threatened due to lackof information concerning the quality, safety andreliability of products and services that they buy.

� 20 �


Inequality of access toinformation...is a form of poverty.

Without knowledge, you cannot act.

Prices for essential services and products suchas bank transactions, insurance policies, bus andtrain fares, fuel consumption, as well as for essen-tials such as foodstuffs, are often increased withoutprior notification and proper justification. Lack ofinformation makes it extremely difficult for com-munities to decide whether price hikes are fair.

In some of these cases, an individual will beable to make the application for the information.Often, though, therewill be no one with thewherewithal to makethe application, to havethe strength of purposeand the resources or topursue an appeal if therequest is refused by theprivate entity. Those whose rights are mostseriously threatened will be powerless to obtainthe information they most desperately need. Thisis why South Africa decided to permit the state tohave the opportunity to make a request for pri-vately-held information, whether directly onbehalf of an individual or community, or in orderto pursue a policy directed at protecting the rightsof its citizens.

Critics of this proposal saw it as a state intru-sion into privacy– a fear of ‘Big Brother State’.The state can, of course, still abuse its power– andclearly the South African Information Act adds tothe Executive Power’s panoply of constitutionaland statutory privileges by granting access topublic sector information. But, this paradigmneeds to be recast in the light of the massiveglobal economic developments of the past decade.The South African Bill was passed into law byparliament a week after a new company, GlaxoWellcome SmithKine Beecham, was createdthrough merger, with an estimated turnover ofaround 100 billion US Dollars. The South Africaneconomy, in contrast, has a budget of not muchover 20 billion US Dollars.

So the question is: where does the real powerlie? We are dealing with a new set of power rela-

tions. Horizontal rights seek to address the in-equalities that these relationships create. Toexclude the state, despite its obvious stake, fromthe new system of open information on thegrounds that it is too powerful would be perversein the face of these new realities. In fact, the SAAct will ensure that the state, operating in thepublic interest and in pursuit of its constitutionalobligations, will be able to access information thatis needed to protect or exercise the rights of its

citizens. Thus will thestate be brought intothe human rightsframework, both interms of its holding ofinformation and interms of its obligationto obtain information

on behalf of its citizens, most especially thosesectors of society least able to protect its interests.

USING THE LAW: SOME CASE STUDIESFROM AROUND THE WORLD

As Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize-winningeconomist observed, there has never been a

substantial famine in a country with a democraticform of government and a relatively free press.Inequality of access to information, he has argued,is a form of poverty. Without knowledge, youcannot act.

Fighting for the Right to Know: Thailand: CaseStudy One3

In May 1992, Thai army soldiers fired at thou-sands of pro-democracy protesters who had gath-ered at Bangkok’s Sanam Luang park in an upris-ing against Suchinda Kraprayoon, the general whohad appointed himself prime minister only sixweeks earlier. Scores were killed when troops firedtheir rifles straight at the crowd and pursueddemonstrators in the streets and back alleys of thecapital. The violence ended only when KingBhumibol Adulyadej himself intervened and atransitional government was formed to prepare forelections.

� 21 �


Eight years later, the Thai government, inresponse to the demands of the relatives of thosemurdered in the uprising, released the report of anarmy investigation of the “Bloody May” massacre.The report provided previously secret informationon what went on during those tumultuous daysand the possible role of two political parties in thecarnage. “Now the healing can begin,” said aneditorial in The Nation, the newspaper that in1992 braved military censors by publishing photo-graphs and accounts of the violence.

The release of the army report was a milestonein a country where the military remained a power-ful and secretive institution that had so far notbeen held to accountfor its actions. For thefirst time, thanks inpart to a new informa-tion law that allowedcitizen’s access to awide range of officialdocuments, the armywas releasing information on one of its deepestand darkest secrets.

Thailand had come a long way. The 1992uprising marked the formal withdrawal of themilitary from power and the end of the era ofcoups d’etat. In the following years, Thais laid thefoundations– including a new constitution, mediareforms and the information law– for what is nowSoutheast Asia’s most robust democracy.

For the longest time, the rulers of SoutheastAsia maintained political control through infor-mation control. Powerful information ministriesmuzzled the press, setting guidelines for whatcould be reported and what could not. A cultureof secrecy pervaded the bureaucracy, making itdifficult, if not impossible, for citizens to find outhow their governments were doing their work andhow public funds were being spent.

Since the late 1980s, however, democracymovements, technological advances and the

increasing integration of regional economies intoglobal trade and finance have challenged suchstranglehold. In Indonesia, the Philippines andThailand, the media have played an importantrole in providing citizens information on theexcesses of authoritarian regimes. The power of aninformed citizenry was dramatised in uprisings thattook place in the streets of Manila in 1986, inBangkok in 1992 and in Jakarta and other Indone-sian cities in 1998.

Today, in these countries, a free press provides asteady stream of information on corruption, theabuse of power and assorted forms of malfeasance.Greater access to information has also shed light

on the past, whetherit is military wrong-doing as in the caseof Thailand, or thethievery of deposeddictators, as in thecase of the Philip-pines and Indonesia.

Information has empowered not just the press, butcitizens as well, allowing them to challenge gov-ernment policy and denounce official abuse.

Uncovering Corruption in the Thai SchoolSystem: Thailand: Case Study Two4

The first major case under Thailand’s right toaccess information act revolved around the admis-sions process to Kasetsart Demonstration School,one of several highly regarded, state-fundedprimary schools. The admissions process to theschool included an entrance examination, but testscores and ranks were never made public, and thestudent body was largely composed of dek sen–children from elite, well-connected families.These factors created a widely held public percep-tion that some form of bribery played a part in theadmissions process.

In early 1998, a parent whose child had ‘failed’to pass the entrance examination asked to see herdaughter’s answer sheets and marks, but was

Information has empowered not just thepress, but citizens as well, allowing

them to challenge government policy anddenounce official abuse.

� 22 �


refused. In the past, that would have been the endof the road– she and her daughter would havebeen left aggrieved, frustrated, and powerless.Instead, she invoked the access to informationlaw.

In November 1998, the Official InformationCommission ruled that the answer sheets andmarks of the child and the 120 students who hadbeen admitted to the school were public informa-tion and had to be disclosed. There was a period ofpublic controversy, but eventually the schooladmitted that 38 of the students who had failedthe examination had been admitted because ofpayments made by their parents.

The child’s parents then filed a lawsuit arguingthat the school’s admission practices were dis-criminatory and violated the equality clause ofThailand’s new Constitution. The Council ofState, a government legal advisory body withpower to issues legal rulings, found in her favourand ordered the school and all state-fundedschools to abolish such corrupt and discriminatorypractices.

Using Its New Law to Powerful Effect: SouthAfrica: Case One

In 1999, the South African government de-cided to declare a moratorium on the publicationof crime statistics, which are the subject of consid-erable political controversy. The reason providedfor the moratorium was to improve the collationand thereby the quality of the statistics.

The moratorium hampered the work of con-cerned organizations committed to the transfor-mation of criminal justice in South Africa. Anewspaper, the Cape Argus, took up the argumentwith the government and finally launched anapplication for a specific set of statistics relating tocar hijackings in and around the main Cape Townfreeway. The newspaper argued that it and itsreaders had the right to the information because itwas a matter of public importance and interest. A

South African NGO, the Open DemocracyAdvice Centre (ODAC), intervened in order tostrengthen the case by showing how service-providing NGOs, such as Rape Crisis, need thestatistics for their work. ODAC mobilised supportfrom a range of such organizations to submit ajoint amicus application.

As a result of the action, brought using theright to access information, the government wasforced to publish a 1998 crime statistics report ofits own commission, which specifically stated thatthere was no reason to withhold crime statisticsduring the period of re-organization. In fact, itrecommended the opposite, in order to encouragepublic input on the accuracy of the statistics. TheMinister for Safety and Security withdrew theircontest of the case, and the moratorium on pub-lishing the information was lifted.

Transparency for the Victims of Apartheid:South Africa: Case Two

A central plank of President Nelson Mandela’spost-transition project for building national unitywas the Truth and Reconciliation Commission(TRC). The truth commission process had threemain components: to hear evidence of violationsof human rights and make findings; to considerapplications by abusers for amnesty; and to awardreparations (compensation) to those who hadsuffered gross violations of human rights.

A full report of the TRC has now been pub-lished, recording in comprehensive detail thecruel individual and institutional dimensions ofapartheid. Hearings by the Amnesty committeehave been completed, with scores of applicationsresolved. But, the third aspect– reparations– hasbeen left hanging. Hardly anyone has receivedanything. A support group for victims of apartheidhas been established, called the KhulemaniGroup. Their first goal was to try and find out thegovernment’s exact policy on reparations. Theyapproached the Open Democracy Advice Centre(ODAC) for advice on how to request this neces-

� 23 �


sary information. ODAC assisted the Group inpreparing a formal application under the SouthAfrican Access to Information Act. The Govern-ment conceded that there was a policy document,but was nevertheless reluctant to release it.

Having failed to provide a copy of the docu-ment within the 90 day time limit, the KhulemaniGroup has, on ODAC’s advice, now appealed the“deemed refusal” to the relevant InformationOfficer, the Director-General of the Departmentof Justice. He will now be compelled to eitherprovide the policy document or point to the clauseunder the Act that exempts him from having todisclose it.

Either way there are due process protections; ifan exemption is applied– and it is difficult to seewhat exemption could properly apply to this case–then the matter can be further appealed to theCourts. Although this case is causing frustrationsto the Khulemani Group, the key is that they dohave legal redress and the law provides both themand the government with a clear process fordetermining access.

New Access to Information Act is AttractingMuch Use: Bulgaria

Although the Bulgarian Access to PublicInformation Act only came into force in July2000, citizens and citizen support organizations,such as the Access to Information Program Foun-dation, have used it regularly.5 Completed orcurrent cases include:

1. The Government was forced to provideinformation on the number of complaints ofethnic or racial discrimination made byethnic minorities.

2. An environmental protection NGO re-quested minutes of Supreme Experts Eco-logical Council meetings.

3. An economic policy NGO has appealed therefusal by National Health Fund to release

information of its regional units’ 2000budgets and financial reports.

4. An NGO has requested from the CentralElectoral Committee the record of its votecounting procedures.

5. A local citizens’ group has requested a copyof the report on the noise level of a buildingin the town where they live.

LESSONS FOR CITIZENS AND CITIZENS’ORGANIZATIONS

First, the right to access information creates theopportunity to garner information to bolster

the research that underpins civil society organiza-tions’ campaigns.

Second, organizations have learned that theymust actually use the legislation, especially in theearly days. Requesters must be assertive anddemand good service under the law. The experi-ence in the United States, where they have hadFreedom of Information laws for over 30 years,shows that the early few years are crucial in deter-mining habits– on both sides. After that, systemsare created, and norms established. Thus, organi-zations must take test cases, such as the SouthAfrican test case against the government’s crimestatistics moratorium.

Third, organizations must move governmenttowards a “right to know” approach, encouraginggovernments to automatically publish the majorityof its information. The Internet age creates oppor-tunities in this respect, such as e-government(with user-friendly search engines to help guardagainst the danger of overload).6 Clearly, the“hard cases”, the pieces of information we mostwant and government most wants to protect, willnot ever be automatically disclosed, unless bymistake. But there is a huge volume of usefulinformation that could and should be put into thepublic sphere. It is in the government’s interest,as the more that they automatically disclose, thefewer the decisions in relation to requests for

� 24 �


information that they will have to make and thecheaper the new system will be to manage.

Fourth, through use of the legislation organiza-tions can help shape the government’s response.In the U.S., for example, the environmental lobbywas so effective in using the legislation that thefederal government created a whole new structure– the Environmental Protection Agency – whichhas subsequently been used by concernedorganisations to facilitate community requests forinformation.

Fifth, organizations will need to be vigilant interms of time delays, to ensure that governmentdoes not suffocate the law by taking forever torespond to requests.

Sixth, organizations will, as usual, need to findchampions in government and strategic partners,from the specialist civil society sectors (whether itbe environmental, HIV-AIDS, human rightsgroups, and so on), with unions, professionalassociations and with the media.

Finally, organizations will need to work to-gether, to promote better and more effective use ofAccess to Information laws. For example, the newSouth African NGO, The Open DemocracyAdvice Centre,7 is a collaboration among three ofits largest NGOs, and is intended to provide aservice to other NGOs in the use of the Access toInformation Act. In the U.S., The Freedom ofInformation Clearinghouse is a joint project ofPublic Citizen and Ralph Nader’s Center for Study ofResponsive Law. It provides technical and legalassistance to individuals, public interest groups,and the media who seek access to informationheld by government agencies.8

KEY PRINCIPLES FOR A USEABLE ANDUSER-FRIENDLY ACCESS TOINFORMATION LAW

A Basic Matrix of Key Issues & Questions

Breadth and Depth

Who does the law apply to? Which bodieswill the law not apply to and why? Does

the law cover records held by private bodies aswell as public bodies? If not, are the records heldby semi-governmental or semi-autonomous enti-ties, like electricity boards, adequately covered bythe definition of “public information”? Does itprovide access to some internal government policyadvice and discussion in order to promote publicunderstanding, debate and accountability aroundpublic policy-making?

For example, all access to information lawsaround the world include provision for non-disclosure of records relating to national security;that is both inevitable and appropriate. Butblanket exemptions – that is to say, an exemptionthat covers, automatically, a category or type ofinformation – are unwelcome, often unnecessary,and risks serious abuse.

Exemptions

What information is exempt? Are the exemp-tion categories tightly and clearly drawn? Are theyreasonable and in line with international stan-dards? Are the exemptions based on “harm tests”in which non-disclosure is only permissible if itcan be shown that disclosure would harm a speci-fied interest, such as national security? Are asmany as possible of the exemptions discretionary?Is there a public interest over-ride?

In general, as discussed above, blanket exemp-tions are unattractive in terms of usability from arequester, citizen perspective, because they focuson the owner/holder of the information ratherthan the information itself. The better course is to

� 25 �


Blanket exemptions are unattractive interms of usability...The better course is tohave clearly drafted exemption sections for

the type of record, rather than broad blanketexemptions for the holding department or

entity.

have clearly drafted exemption sections for thetype of record, rather than broad blanket exemp-tions for the holding department or entity. In theSouth African example concerning the unlawfulmoratorium in the publication of crime statistics,the preciseness of the national security exemptionmeant that it was, rightly, hard for the SouthAfrican govern-ment to justify itsunnecessary andunhelpful shifttowards secrecy.Armed with a lawcontaining blanketexemptions, theSA governmentwould have beensurely tempted toclaim that the crime statistics were an “intelli-gence gathering” activity and thereby exemptwithout recourse to appeal.

Another common exemption found in manyacts is the “deliberative process”, which exemptsfrom disclosure an official document that containsopinions, advice or recommendations and/or arecord of consultations or deliberations. However,this exemption should clearly link the type ofdocument to any form of mischief. Where suchclauses appear, such as in the U.S. or SouthAfrican law, they are linked to the notion ofcandour; the idea is that policy-makers should notfeel restricted in terms of their candour with eachother during the decision-making phase. If releaseof the document would not have a chilling effecton deliberation, the document should not beexempt from disclosure.

Finally, there should be a general public inter-est override covering the exemptions. Most lawsaround the world link a harm test to the notion ofpublic interest, so as to trump the exemptionwhen appropriate. This is critical to drafting a billthat accords with good international practice.

The System

Is it user-friendly? Does it encourage applica-tion and openness? Are the bureaucratic proce-dures (such as request forms) fair, clear and reason-able? Do citizens have to pay a fee and if so, is thefee reasonable and affordable? Are there provisions

for urgency? Forexample, timelimits should bereasonably clearand public bodiesshould be requiredto provide guidinginformation such asthe “road map”discussed above.

However, effective implementation dependslargely on a combination of political will andadequate resources. Where there is any doubtabout either – as there was and still is in SouthAfrica – then the level of procedural detail pre-scribed by the Act needs to be increased. In this,as is the case elsewhere, the governing/implement-ing regulations will be very important.

A Culture of Openness and Duty to be Proactive

Does the law mandate or encourage a “right-to-know” approach whereby as much information aspossible is automatically disclosed in a user-friendly and accessible way? Will citizens beentitled to information in the form they request it?Is it an offence to shred records or lie about theexistence of records in order to avoid disclosure?

Enforcement

How does the citizen enforce the right? Will heor she have to go to court, or will there be anindependent commissioner, commission or tribu-nal? Is the enforcement route accessible, inexpen-sive and speedy? Are there firm timetables laiddown for providing information and strong penal-ties for failure to meet them?

� 26 �


For citizens, especially the poor, it is achance to reclaim ground in their struggle

for a more just existence.

The Duty To Be Proactive – Adopting a Right toKnow Approach

It is highly desirable that draft access to infor-mation laws mandate or encourages the “right-to-know” approachadopted in the mostmodern laws else-where. Inevitably,this makes the lawboth user-friendlyand less expensive, asless human resourcesare needed to operationalize the right.

CONCLUSION

Throughout the world nations, multilateralorganisations and corporations committed to

good corporate governance are taking the openroad. More than thirty countries have passed lawsthat give effect to the public’s Right to Know.There is an international trend, setting newstandards in openness in contrast to the years ofsecrecy and tyranny that preceded the last decade.Thus, an access to information law can offer a newbeginning in the relationship between govern-ment and its citizens. Transparency and the freerflow of information that comes with it provides achance to build confidence and to craft a newcovenant of trust between the governed and thegoverning. With it come an array of other possi-bilities – of enhanced international businessconfidence and, therefore, a more conduciveenvironment for investment and of strengtheningthe fight against corruption. For citizens, espe-cially the poor, it is a chance to reclaim ground intheir struggle for a more just existence. Withgreater knowledge, people can participate moremeaningfully and can contribute to the policy-making process. Moreover, they can use access toinformation law to gain the information withwhich comes greater power. In this sense, theRight to Know is the Right to Live.

To achieve these noble objectives, the pass-ing of a law must be accompanied by a commit-

ment to effective implementation. The drafting ofthe law must take this into account; while inter-national best practice is now sufficiently devel-oped that there are key principles that can beapplied to the writing of a good access to informa-

tion law, the detailcan be fashioned insuch a way as tomaximise the pros-pects for successfulimplementation.Making the lawwork in practice is a

two-way responsibility: government must deployresources to create the system that will permitinformation requests to be proficiently respondedto; civil society organizations must generaterequests and actually use the law. On its own anaccess to information law is no panacea. But withpolitical will, it can lay the pivotal foundationstone around which can be built a fairer, modernand more successful society.

1 Joseph Stiglitz, ‘On Liberty, the Right to Know, andPublic Discourse: The Role of Transparency in PublicLife,’ Oxford Amnesty Lecture, Oxford University,United Kingdom, January 27, 1999.

2 Section 8(2) of the interim constitution stated: ‘Noperson shall be unfairly discriminated against, directly orindirectly ... on one or more of the following grounds inparticular: race, gender, sex, ethnic or social origin,colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion,conscience, belief, culture or language.’ The finalconstitution added pregnancy, marital status and birth tothe list of grounds [section 9(3)].

3 This is an edited extract from the introduction to “TheRight to Know: Access to Information in South-EastAsia” by Sheila S. Coronel.

4 Extracted from “Global Trends on the Right to Informa-tion: A Survey of South Asia”, published by ARTICLE19, the Centre for Policy Alternatives, Sri Lanka, theCommonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), andthe Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

5 www.aip-bg.org

6 US law has been bolstered by an eFOI law in 1996,which promotes right-to-know through electronicpublication of government information.

� 27 �


7 www.opendemocracy.org.za

8 http://www.publiccitizen.org/litigation/free_info/. TheClearinghouse is a nonprofit organization. This sitecontains links and resources to assist citizens in using theFreedom of Information Act (FOIA), as well as informa-tion and testimony on their involvement with Freedomof Information issues and cases. Also found at this site:The United States Freedom Of Information Act:Lessons Learned from Thirty Years of Experience withthe Law. By Amanda Frost, Director of Public Citizen’sFreedom of Information Clearinghouse.

� 28 �


� 29 �

THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION PROJECT: JAMAICA CASE STUDY

THE CARTER CENTER ACCESS TO INFORMATION PROJECT:JAMAICA CASE STUDY

Laura Neuman

INTRODUCTION

Recognizing the challenges that corruptionposed to democracy and development in the

hemisphere, The Carter Center’s Council ofPresidents and Prime Ministers of the Americasasked that we convene political leaders, civilsociety organizations, scholars, media, and privatebusiness sector representatives to discuss eachsector’s role in addressing this multi-facetedproblem. The Transparency for Growth in theAmericas conference, held at The Carter Centerin May 1999, provoked thoughtful discussionregarding an issue that, heretofore, was oftenconsidered taboo. Recommendations for promot-ing transparency and decreasing corruption werevaried, including the need to disseminate the basicmessage that corruption is not only an ethical, butalso a policy problem, and that solutions must begrounded in firm, achievable commitments fromboth leaders and citizens. One of the key recom-mendations to promote transparency and furtherdeepen democracy was the passage and implemen-tation of access to information laws.

In conjunction with the conference, TheCarter Center’s Americas Program began threetransparency projects in the region. JamaicanPrime Minister and member of our Council, P.J.Patterson, invited us to include Jamaica as one ofour first initiatives. At that time, his administra-tion was considering proposed access to informa-tion legislation, as well as having drafted theCorruption Prevention Act in order to bringJamaica into compliance with the Organization ofAmerican States’ Convention Against Corrup-tion, of which Jamaica was a signatory. TheCarter Center agreed to help inform the debateregarding these important transparency tools.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The Freedom of Information Act, as it wasthen called, had been initiated as early as

1991. The interest was perhaps generated by thediscussions leading up to the 1992 CARICOMCharter of Civil Society for the Caribbean Com-munity, which include a provision for Freedom ofExpression and Access to Information. In 1995 aGreen Paper was tabled before Parliament, fol-lowed in 1996 by the Wells Committee reportentitled Freedom of Information: A Door to OpenGovernment. On November 16, 1998, the JamaicaCabinet approved the proposal for the enactmentof a Freedom of Information Act, which was toincorporate the Wells report recommendations. AMinistry Paper authored by Prime MinisterPatterson, in essence the equivalent of draftinginstructions to the Parliamentary Counsel, wasthen submitted on November 23, 1998 with theexpectation that the bill would be tabled beforeParliament shortly and go to a vote of the fullhouse. The highly anticipated draft legislationnever appeared, as other priorities overshadowedthe initial enthusiasm.

In 1999, the Parliamentary Counsel drafted aFreedom of Information bill, but never tabled itbefore Parliament. Throughout 1999 and 2000,discussion periodically occurred but no legislationwas forthcoming. A seminar to release The CarterCenter guidebook on combating corruption inJamaica was held in October 1999 and a secondseminar sponsored by the Media Association ofJamaica in February 2000 sought to keep thespotlight on the legislation. This second seminar,which focused on the importance of this law forall sectors of Jamaica society, drew over 50 partici-pants and included a number of well-regarded

� 30 �


international experts, as well as Minister of Infor-mation Maxine Henry-Wilson. Nevertheless,there was still no indication that legislation wasimminent.

In May 2001, fully one year later, MinisterHenry-Wilson informed us that a number ofchanges had been made to the drafting instruc-tions, including a name change to Access toInformation. She hoped to have the act draftedand tabled in Parliament before the session endedin July, and then moved to a joint committee forfurther debate and to allow for public comment.

The Access to Information Act, 2001 wascompleted in the summer of 2001, but like itspredecessors, it was never tabled before the Ja-maica Parliament. Shortly thereafter, MinisterHenry-Wilson was relocated within governmentand replaced by Minister of Information ColinCampbell. On November 28, 2001, a full 10 yearsfrom the first discussion of access to informationlegislation in Jamaica, Minister Campbell an-nounced that the draft law would be tabled inParliament on December 4 and then moved to thejoint select committee. Following numerous fulldays of sittings of the joint select committee andmore than 4 days of public hearings, the reportwas presented to the full House of Parliament onMarch 31, 2002. Debate, which lasted throughtwo days of Parliamentary sessions, began on May22 and concluded on May 28 with the passage ofthe Access to Information Act 2002.

CARTER CENTER JAMAICA PROJECT

Legitimacy is crucial to the ultimate success ofaccess to information legislation. Engaging

society writ large in deep debate, before the law ispassed, is an important mechanism to assure thatthere is broad “buy-in” as well as that the law willbe utilized. Education is, thus, critical. As a firststep in the Jamaica project, we commissionedpapers from distinguished Jamaican scholars onthe existing anti-corruption laws and on the

proposed Corruption Prevention Act and Freedomof Information Act. In October 1999, thesearticles were compiled and edited into CombatingCorruption in Jamaica: A Citizen’s Guide, andwidely distributed for free. In partnership with theMedia Association of Jamaica, the Center heldpublic seminars on the issue and conducted work-ing groups.

Although the Corruption Prevention Actincluded controversial provisions, such as costlyfines for anyone that published informationrelated to civil servants’ annual asset declarations,until that point, civil society had shown littleinterest in the draft legislation. However, when itbecame clear that the Corruption Prevention Acthad wider implications that could adversely affectpress freedoms, local media and human rightsgroups became more vocal. This same interestcarried over to the debate regarding access toinformation.

In February 2002, The Carter Center publisheda second guidebook entitled Fostering Transparencyand Preventing Corruption in Jamaica. Againaccompanied by international and local experts,the Center cosponsored a seminar to discuss thestatus of the two relevant pieces of legislation.Over 100 persons attended the seminar, includingmany influential legislators. Many of thosepresent made submissions to the joint selectcommittee, which resulted in significant amend-ments to the draft legislation. Following on theheels of the seminar and the joint select commit-tee hearings, and with great continued interestfrom the media owners and a civil society consor-tium led by the human rights organization, Jamai-cans for Justice, the access to information act waspassed.

The implementation phase, which to some iseven more critical then passage, is a time in whichgovernment and civil society can cement theirjoint interest in the effectiveness of the legisla-tion. Governments play a critical role duringimplementation, as they must provide the neces-

� 31 �


Without persistent use of this law, itwill atrophy, thus diminishing thepotential for open government and

citizen empowerment.

sary human and financial resources to developprocesses for archiving and retrieving informationand work with agencies to metamorphosis theculture of secrecy to one of openness. Neverthe-less, it is during the implementation phase thatthe responsibilitybegins to shift fromgovernment to civilsociety. At this point,civil society organiza-tions should begininitiatives to requestinformation and tomonitor the act. Without persistent use of thislaw, it will atrophy, thus diminishing the potentialfor open government and citizen empowerment

Following the Parliamentary vote, The CarterCenter met with Minister Campbell and his newlyformed Access to Information Unit. We discussedthe government’s plan for designing proceduresrelated to requests and retrieval of informationand for allocating scarce resources. The Jamaicagovernment, to their great credit, had alreadybegun meeting with individual ministries todevelop an action plan for implementation.

The Carter Center, in August 2002, conveneda workshop of over 25 ministerial staff memberstasked with implementing the access to informa-tion act, members of the access to informationunit, and civil society representatives. The broadquestion addressed at this workshop was “whatneeds to be happen for the access to informationact to be effectively implemented.” The partici-pants split into six smaller working groups, com-prised of a mix of government and civil societyrepresentatives, to design an implementationlandscape including challenges, obstacles andidentifying the responsible party. This exercise,led by Carter Center consultant Richard Calland,proved highly successful in delineating next stepsfor implementation and solidifying alliances.

The Jamaica government and civil society hasrecognized access to information as a key to

deepening their long-standing democracy. Asthey have learned, a critical component to asuccessful anti-corruption strategy, more opengovernment and enhancement of citizen rights is alegislated right to and systematic method for

receiving information.I have been privileged

to walk the path withthe Jamaican peoplefrom debate to passageto implementation ofthe access to informa-tion act, and hope

that the following lessons may assist others toavoid obstacles and achieve similar successes.

LESSONS LEARNED

In working to inform the debate regarding theaccess to information act and assist in the

effective passage and implementation, we havelearned a number of valuable lessons.

Political Will is Critical

The government must see passage, implemen-tation and enforcement of a vigorous access toinformation law as a priority. Effective access toinformation laws can take an enormous amount ofenergy and resources, particularly in societieswhere a culture of secrecy has dominated in thepast and where there has been no process in placefor archiving and retrieving government-helddocuments. Moreover, even if the head of gov-ernment is committed to promoting the right toinformation, he or she needs the backing of herpolitical party. Opposition is often an ally inaccess to information campaigns, but that interestcan change once they are again in office. Finally,political will, even when once clear, can changeunder stressful circumstances, such as September11the events, or when inconvenient.

In the three years that The Carter Center wasengaged in Jamaica, there were clearly times inwhich access to information was not a priority.

� 32 �


The government must see passage,implementation and enforcementof a vigorous access to infromation

law as a priority.

The ultimate passage of the bill was largely due tocontinued pressures from civil society, and theneed for the government to find success for itsanti-corruption program during the electionseason. The role of the media and other civilsociety groups in keeping this issue on the “front-burner” cannot be underestimated. As well,continued international attention from groupssuch as The Carter Center and recognition of theincreasing global trend toward openness, rein-forced the government’s will when they may haveotherwise floundered.

Create Alliances and Strange Bedfellows

Access to information transcends all sectors ofsociety. Media houses use access to informationrequests as part of their investigative journalism,advocates for human rights and the environmenttake advantage of such laws to understand thepolicy decisions of governments, local communi-ties can better monitor spending decisions by theirmunicipal governments, and the private sectorbenefits as they use this mechanism to learn ofgovernment plans relating to taxation, publiccontracting, or customs. It is when these groupsjoin together to form aconstituency for access toinformation that the lawsstrength becomes mostapparent.

The internationalcommunity can play animportant role in keepingthe pressure on governments and in providingcomparative experiences and resources. However,international organizations, such as The CarterCenter, cannot work alone. Forming partnershipswith local organizations that are continuallypresent and can more effectively monitor thepolitical situation is critical.

In Jamaica, such strange bedfellows as humanrights NGOs, media owners, private sector leaders,and the civil service association joined together to

encourage amendments to the proposed bill.Through their joint submissions and support ofone another, in addition to meetings and workwith The Carter Center, a number of criticalchanges were made during the Parliamentarydebate. The formation of a vocal constituency,along with specific “champions” such as the wellknown and highly regarded Oliver Clarke, ulti-mately placed the necessary political pressure onthe legislators and clearly indicated the politicalcapital of this legislation.

The Debate Must Be Focused

As governments increasingly look to passaccess to information laws, it is clear that manyare drafted in a rush and without sufficient techni-cal and comparative expertise or civil societyinvolvement. This opens the door for greatcriticism of drafted legislation and, subsequently,government entrenchment and refusal to makeappropriate amendments.

It is important that in promoting the passage ofaccess to information laws, NGOs carefully picktheir battles to focus on the most critical deficien-

cies. When an NGOcriticizes the entire bill,rather than choosing themost crucial areas inneed of change, theyoften lose credibility withthe government and theimportant messagesmixed in with the rest of

their critiques are missed. At the same time,government must be willing to compromise onsome matters in order to provide greater legiti-macy and receive greater acceptance of the na-scent bill.

Jamaica NGOs learned this lesson, as theysought to influence government and oppositionlawmakers. As their lobbying efforts continued,the NGO’s became more sophisticated and fo-cused on the two or three most offensive provi-

� 33 �


It is only through changing thepervasive culture of secrecy that the act

will truly have meaning.

sions. When the bill came before Parliament forfinal debate, the strategy paid off as the Ministerhimself initiated a change in accord with thewishes of the vocal civil society coalition.

Passing the Law May be the Easy Part

Passing the access to information law may infact be the easiest piece of the puzzle. As we allknow, laws alone are only as good as the qualitypaper that they are printed upon. The legislationmust be fully implemented and enforced, andthese two factors should be considered early on –during the initial drafting of the law, rather thanonly after its passage.

It is easy, for example, when working on draft-ing the laws to become overly preoccupied withthe exemptions portion of the bill, to the exclu-sion of other keyprovisions. Whilenational securityexceptions are clearlysexier than the imple-mentation procedures,they are often muchless important in determining the bill’s overallvalue to citizens. Issues such as how the agencieswill archive and retrieve information, time limitsfor completion of information requests, fees andappeals procedures are areas that must receivemuch greater public attention.

As the bill was in its draft stages, our localpartner, Jamaicans for Justice, began consideringnot only how the law could be used to furthertheir agenda, but also how they would monitor theeffectiveness of the law. For our part, we consid-ered equally the implementation and enforcementstages. For example, judicial remedies are avail-able for persons denied their petition, thus allow-ing enforcement of the law. This strength of theappeals process lies in it accessibility. Therefore,prior to passage of the law, we met with localattorneys to discuss the role they may play in

assuring representation for persons inappropriatelydenied information.

Finally, under this point, implementationcannot be based solely on the use of the internet.Although the internet can and should play animportant role in disseminating governmentallyheld information, it is by no means the soleanswer, particularly in societies where availabilityof the internet is not widespread.

Changing the Culture of Secrecy

Although passing the legislation is critical todeveloping an enforceable right to information, itis only through changing the pervasive culture ofsecrecy that the act will truly have meaning.Government employees who have always workedunder a culture of secrecy may find the shift in

focus extremelydifficult. Moreover, asin Jamaica, they mayhave even signed anoath binding them touphold the traditionalOfficial Secrets Act.

In cases where the culture has been one of secrecy,additional mechanisms may be necessary to ensureaccess to information or the default of withhold-ing information will again become the rule.

Those tasked with completing access to infor-mation requests may look to their supervisors forguidance. Thus, full “buy-in” from the Ministersand Permanent Secretaries is critical and shouldbe manifested early in the implementation phase.Continuing education of both access to informa-tion officers and the public will assist in transform-ing the traditional culture. Finally, as is discussedin greater detail in Dr. Calland’s article, imple-menting a “right to know” system that automati-cally makes classes of information available re-moves discretion from the front line workers, thusavoiding the need for discomforting decision-making.

� 34 �


CONCLUSION

The Carter Center will remain engaged in thepromotion of the access to information law in

Jamaica. In addition to continuing assistancerelating to implementation, we will provide expertadvice to the Jamaica bar association and judgeson the enforcement of the law, as they seek toenforce the right to information and uphold thetenets of the new law.

As a case study, the Jamaica project illustratesthe many obstacles that face governments andcivil society as they strive to pass and implementeffective access to information legislation. Never-theless, it also demonstrates that with politicalwill and local “champions” and alliances, successis possible. Each country will face their uniquechallenges. The Carter Center joins other groups,both local and international, in encouragingaccess to information as a key to increased trans-parency and democratic participation.

� 35 �

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORSJimmy Carter (James Earl Carter, Jr.), thirty-

ninth president of the United States, was bornOctober 1, 1924, in the small farming town ofPlains, Georgia. He was educated in GeorgiaSouthwestern College and the Georgia Institute ofTechnology, and received a B.S. degree from theUnited States Naval Academy in 1946. He laterdid graduate work in nuclear physics at UnionCollege. In 1962, Carter won election to theGeorgia Senate. He lost his first gubernatorialcampaign in 1966, but won the next election,becoming Georgia’s 76th governor on January 12,1971. He was the Democratic National Commit-tee campaign chairman for the 1974 congressionalelections. Jimmy Carter served as president fromJanuary 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981. Notewor-thy foreign policy accomplishments of his admin-istration included the Panama Canal treaties, theCamp David Accords, the treaty of peace betweenEgypt and Israel, the SALT II treaty with theSoviet Union, and the establishment of U.S.diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic ofChina. He championed human rights throughoutthe world.

In 1982, he became University DistinguishedProfessor at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia,and founded The Carter Center. Actively guidedby President Carter, the nonpartisan and non-profit Center addresses national and internationalissues of public policy. Carter Center fellows,associates, and staff join with President Carter inefforts to resolve conflict, promote democracy,protect human rights, and prevent disease andother afflictions. Through the Global 2000program, the Center advances health and agricul-ture in the developing world.

On October 11, 2002, the Norwegian NobelCommittee announced it was awarding the NobelPeace Prize for 2002 to Mr. Carter “for his decadesof untiring effort to find peaceful solutions tointernational conflicts, to advance democracy andhuman rights, and to promote economic andsocial development.”

Richard Calland is Programme Manager ofPIMS, the Political Information & MonitoringService at the Institute for Democracy in SouthAfrica (IDASA), where he has worked since1995, and Executive Chair of the Open Democ-racy Advice Centre in Cape Town. Calland was aleading member of the ten-organisation OpenDemocracy Campaign Group that conductedextensive research and lobbied intensively inrelation to what was then the Open DemocracyBill (now the Promotion of Access to InformationAct 2000). Large parts of the bill were re-writtenby the Parliamentary Committee as a result of thelobbying of the Campaign Group. The OpenDemocracy Advice Centre provides advice andsupport for organisations making requests forinformation under the Promotion of Access toInformation Act and also conducts test caselitigation.

Dr. Calland has written and spoken extensivelyon the issue of access to information legislationand implementation, and has recently publishedthe book The Right to Know, The Right to Live:Access to Information. He has also publishednumerous books and articles in the field of SouthAfrican politics, including Real Politics – TheWicked Issues and Thabo Mbeki’s World.

Prior to coming to South Africa in 1994,Calland practised at the London Bar for sevenyears, specialising in Public Law. He has an LLMin Comparative Constitutional Law from theUniversity of Cape Town (1994) and is a featurecommentator for the Daily Mail and Guardiannewspaper.

Laura Neuman is the senior program associatefor the Americas Program at The Carter Center.She directs and implements transparency projects,including projects in Jamaica, Costa Rica and theUnited States. Ms. Neuman has edited two widelydistributed publications on fighting corruption inJamaica and presented at a number of interna-tional seminars relating to Access to Information

� 36 �


legislation and implementation and transparencymeasures. As part of her work on transparency,she facilitates The Carter Center’s Council forEthical Business Practices, a working group ofleading Atlanta corporations that act to promotethe adoption of business codes of conduct, integ-rity and transparency in the private sector. Ms.Neuman has also worked on election monitoringmissions in Venezuela, Guatemala, the DominicanRepublic, Nicaragua, Peru and the CherokeeNation. Ms. Neuman led The Carter Centerinternational observation delegations to Jamaica(2002), the Dominican Republic (2000) andVenezuela (1999, 2000). Ms. Neuman is a memberof The Carter Center Human Rights Committee.

Prior to joining The Carter Center in August1999, Ms. Neuman was senior staff attorney forSeniorLaw at Legal Action of Wisconsin, thestate’s largest legal services provider for low-income persons. In 1996, she won the prestigiousOlder Adult Service Providers’ ConsortiumAdvocate of the Year award. She is a 1993 gradu-ate of the University of Wisconsin law school,receiving the Ruth B Doyle Award for Leadershipand Excellence. She received a bachelor degree ininternational relations in 1989 from the Univer-sity of Wisconsin, Madison. Ms. Neuman ispresently working towards her Master Degree inInternational Public Health, with a specialty ininfectious diseases, at Emory University.

Alasdair Roberts is an associate professor inthe Maxwell School of Citizenship and PublicAffairs at Syracuse University. He is also Directorof the Campbell Public Affairs Institute at Syra-cuse University.

A native of Pembroke, Ontario, Canada,Professor Roberts began his BA in politics atQueen’s University in 1979. He received a JDfrom the University of Toronto Faculty of Law in1984, a Master’s degree in Public Policy from theKennedy School of Government at HarvardUniversity in 1986, and a Ph.D. in Public Policyfrom Harvard University in 1994.

From 1990 to 2001, Professor Roberts taught inthe School of Policy Studies at Queen’s Univer-sity, Canada. He was Associate Director of theSchool from 1993 to 1995. He has also heldvisiting appointments at Georgetown University’sGraduate Public Policy Institute and at the Uni-versity of Southern California’s WashingtonPublic Affairs Center. He was a visiting scholar atthe Council for Excellence in Government inWashington, DC in 1997-98 and a fellow at theWoodrow Wilson International Center for Schol-ars in Washington, DC in 1999-2000.

Professor Roberts is currently a fellow of theOpen Society Institute, New York; a visitingfellow at the School of Policy Studies at Queen’sUniversity; a member of the Canadian TreasuryBoard Secretariat’s Academic Advisory council;and a member of the Board of Editors of PublicAdministration Review. His research focuses ontwo areas: public sector restructuring, and trans-parency in government. His work has been widelypublished. He received the Dimock Award forbest lead article in Public Administration Reviewin 1995, and the Hodgetts Award for best Englisharticle in Canadian Public Administration in2000.

� 37 �

THE CARTER CENTER AT A GLANCE

THE CARTER CENTER AT A GLANCE

WHAT IS THE CARTER CENTER?

The Center is a not-for-profit, nongovernmen-tal organization founded in 1982 by former U.S.President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, inpartnership with Emory University. The Centerhas helped to improve millions of lives in morethan 65 countries by waging peace, fightingdisease, and building hope. We work directly withpeople threatened by war, disease, famine, andpoverty to solve problems, renew opportunity, andcreate hope. A key to our success is the ability tomake detailed arrangements with a nation’s topleaders and then deliver services to thousands ofvillages and family groups in the most remote andneglected areas.

WHAT HAS THE CENTER ACHIEVED IN20 YEARS?

The Carter Center has alleviated suffering andadvanced human rights by observing about threedozen multiparty elections in more than 20 coun-tries, preventing or correcting human rightsviolations worldwide, building cooperation amongleaders in the Western Hemisphere, and helpinginner-city families address the social issues mostimportant to them. In addition, the Carter Cen-ter has strengthened human rights institutions,civil society, and economic development inemerging democracies, and has created newavenues for peace in Sudan, Uganda, the KoreanPeninsula, Haiti, the Great Lakes Region ofAfrica, Liberia, and Ethiopia. The Carter Centerhas led a worldwide campaign that has reducedcases of Guinea worm disease by 98 percent,helped to provide some 35 million drug treatmentsto sufferers of river blindness in Africa and LatinAmerica, and worked to erase the stigma againstmental illness in the United States and abroad.The Center has also fostered improved agriculturalpractices, enabling 4,000,000 farmers in Africa todouble, triple, or quadruple their yields of maize,

wheat, corn, and other grains and worked to erasethe stigma against mental illness in the UnitedStates and abroad.

HOW IS THE CENTER STAFFED ANDFUNDED?

The Center has about 150 employees, basedprimarily in Atlanta, Georgia. The Center isfinanced by private donations from individuals,foundations, corporations, and internationaldevelopment assistance agencies. The 2000-2001operating budget, excluding in-kind contributions,was approximately $34 million. The Carter Cen-ter Inc. is a 501 (c)(3) charitable organization,and contributions by U.S. citizens and companiesare tax-deductible as allowed by law.

WHERE IS THE CENTER LOCATED?

The Carter Center is located in a 35-acresetting 1 mile east of downtown Atlanta. Fourcircular interconnected pavilions house offices forPresident and Mrs. Carter and most of theCenter’s program staff. The complex includes thenondenominational Cecil B. Day Chapel andother conference facilities. The Jimmy CarterLibrary and Museum, which adjoins the Center, isowned and operated by the National Archives andRecords Administration of the federal govern-ment. The Center and Library are known collec-tively as The Carter Presidential Center.

Documents

ACCESS TO INFORMATION - Carter Center · ing institutes, recognize the importance of strong access to information laws that are appropriately implemented and fully enforced. Reaching