in my short time in this House that, during Consideration Stages of Bills and when it comes to the passage of it, we sometimes do not see the best numbers of Hon Members in the Chamber, I believe that there is a responsibility on us all, and because of the risk that the Bill purports to do what has not been done to take up the challenge and deal with it.
Mr Speaker, there is this lingering perception out there, which I believe we should take advantage of today, to emphasise in curing.
The perception is that, Ghana now seeks to pass a RTI law, if I may say so, and even though it has been mentioned a few times that article 21 (1) (f) already gives the right to information, that perception still lingers out there and it is particularly held up by my colleagues in the Media that the RTI Bill is now passed and that one would now get the right to access information.
Mr Speaker, as has been said by some Hon Colleagues, the Constitution of Ghana, unlike what happened in Britain where they did not have a Constitution, therefore the Magna Carta only gave them some set of rights which did not exactly include this, has already given us a right to information.
Indeed, in Ghana today, all Ghanaians have a right to information. It is only a procedure for accessing this information that this RTI Bill would seek to create.
Mr Speaker, when we get to the Consideration Stage, we may want to consider amending the title to make it an ‘'RTI Procedure Bill'', so that the message would be clear.
Mr Speaker, in the case of Lolan Ekow Sagoe-Moses and others versus the Hon Minister of Transport and the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Supreme Court of Ghana has ruled on this matter that in Ghana, we have the right to information already and what is only sought to be done is to create the procedure.
The procedure that would be created however, would not necessarily make it easier for journalists to do their work than it is today. Journalists who would want to uncover corruption or who would want to get some information to do their journalism would still have to do that which a proper journalist must do. This would not lower the standard for good journalism.
Mr Speaker, it is important that today, as we discuss this, we would also make that point that it is not an excuse for people to sit in their newsrooms and file frivolous requests and purport to use that as their stories. The high standards of journalism would still have to be maintained.
Mr Speaker, again, for anti-corruption crusaders who are of the view and perpetrate that view -- that if we would want to fight corruption, then the RTI Bill should be passed because that is the answer to fight corruption, I respectfully differ from that opinion.
Mr Speaker, those who desire to be corrupt go to extensive lengths to hide their acts, so for those who desire to uncover corruption, there is a higher responsibility on them to actually do what they would have to do to uncover it.
RTI would not necessarily open the flood gates to uncover corruption. It is only a procedure Act, just like how Act 30 might be a procedure code for executing the criminal offences or for taking action
against the criminal offences that are created by Act 29.
Mr Speaker, that said, indeed there are areas of risk. Hon K. T. Hammond and other Hon Members have spoken about the risks that would be faced as it is passed; but that is also why the exemption clauses have been created.
I am of the view that we should rather take up the higher responsibility of paying attention if possible, to within the life span of this Meeting list exhaustively the places that we believe these risks are, so that we do not use the fact that there are risks, there is work to be done, we have not finished with the work, to let this time elapse as well.
Mr Speaker, I believe this is also an area in tightening up the exemption -- [Interruption.] -- That is information I could easily disclose, but I believe we could take advantage of this and tighten the area of the exemption clauses to avoid mundane requests that would be put through.
Mr Speaker, one area that I am very particular about is the area of information officers. As Hon Colleagues know, I work in the Information Ministry and one of the things that we worked extensively on in this updated Bill is to try to design a mechanism where we do not just pass RTI Bill when there is no structure to deliver on those requests.
This is because, if we do not set up these information offices properly, resource the persons who would be put there, train and orient them properly, we
would go through this excitement and pass the Bill, people would file requests and there would not be persons of the requisite capacity to take a decision on whether an issue qualifies as a matter that should be responded to or whether another issue is a matter that should be rejected.
Mr Speaker, as we do this, I would want to put across that, we should pay particular attention to the resourcing of the information offices so that the procedure that we seek to lay out would be lived when it is put out.
Mr Speaker, there were two final matters that I sought to speak about. One was about the processing fee, but my senior political advisor has dealt with that extensively and so I would not speak about that.
Mr Speaker, the final issue I would want to speak about is the argument about a possible conflict bettween the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) and the RTI Commission. The NCCE in the Constitution has a specific mandate, but the RTI Commission as envisaged in the Act --
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote paragraph 6.8 of the Report.
‘‘The Committee further noted that the Bill seeks to establish a Right to Information Commission which would be an independent entity to monitor the implementation of the right to information in Ghana. The Commission would also have the responsibility to promote and sensitize the public on their constitutional right to information, and monitor the performance of public institutions regarding the right to information…”