Editorial: Free to suppress information
Trying to find out what the government is doing through the Freedom of Information Act has become a feat
It is now abundantly clear that what really matters to Robert Abela is saving his own political skin. Nothing will stand in his way: not the country’s reputation; not the rule of law; not the standards in public life; not even the good of the political party he leads.
Knowing that information is power, he shamelessly wants to control information.
Trying to find out what the government is doing through the Freedom of Information Act has become a feat. Seeking the assistance of, first, the data protection commissioner and then, the law courts has almost become a must.
And in the coming days, the right of every individual to request a magisterial inquiry when something seems suspicious or questionable will become just as burdensome.
In both instances, the real reason is to discourage an inquisitive or concerned person from persisting in accessing official information or ensuring things are being done as they should.
The prime minister seems also to have made a promise to himself to ensure the wealth of cabinet members – public figures par excellence – remain private affairs.
His office has just rejected a freedom of information request to access ministers’ wealth declarations.
Times of Malta filed the application after Abela broke with tradition and refused to publish copies of the annual asset declarations, including his own, in parliament.
His argument is that the declarations are filed for the prime minister’s scrutiny.
It is not just Times of Malta that would like these declarations to be published.
The commissioner for standards in public life has also urged the prime minister to table ministers’ declarations of assets “as soon as possible”.
The commissioner, Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Azzopardi, even encouraged the government to expand parliament’s asset declaration system in line with recommendations by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The OECD has long argued that asset declarations can be a powerful tool to prevent and/or combat corruption involving public officials.
Transparency International believes that a well-defined asset declaration system is a strong tool to fight public sector corruption and abuse of power.
A European Parliament study published just under two years ago refers to the imposition of financial disclosure obligations on elected and appointed office holders as well as public officials.
The UN Convention against Corruption (2003) recommends that state parties establish an effective financial disclosure system for appropriate officials and office holders.
GRECO, the Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption, not only recommended the publication of such information by MPs, spouses and close family members, but also that such information is updated and easily accessible to the public.
The Venice Commission underscored the need for the creation of a system of disclosure of income, assets and interests that would apply to certain categories of public officials.
The European Court of Human Rights does not deem the publication of the financial declarations of people in public life to be a violation of their right to private life, as entrenched in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Provided this is in pursuance of a legitimate aim, such as preventing corruption and enhancing transparency and trust in the functioning of public institutions.
However, Abela thinks all the above are wrong and he is right. He has arrogated to himself the freedom to suppress information.