Zambia needs RTI legislation to combat corruption
The government of Zambia’s decision to further delay the tabling of the proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill and its failure to guarantee the introduction of the Bill in the next parliamentary session represents a huge setback in the nation’s fight against corruption. Indeed, the failure of parliament to enact or even debate this crucial piece of legislation appears astonishing when we consider the revelation of the Ministry of Health corruption scandal earlier this year.
The government of Zambia’s decision to further delay the tabling of the proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill and its failure to guarantee the introduction of the Bill in the next parliamentary session represents a huge setback in the nation’s fight against corruption. Indeed, the failure of parliament to enact or even debate this crucial piece of legislation appears astonishing when we consider the revelation of the Ministry of Health corruption scandal earlier this year.
The devastating impact of such large-scale corruption, especially in the healthcare sector, demands systemic reform. Rather than simply react to each crisis as it occurs, the government must take proactive measures to ensure that it is as difficult as possible for future scams to succeed. The budgetary shortfall of the Ministry of Health due to the suspension of donor payments poses a grave threat to the lives of ordinary Zambians and must not be allowed to reoccur.
In order to tackle corruption it is essential to put systems in place that function to ensure transparency and accountability. While the Zambian government’s recourse to forensic auditing is commendable, it is alarming that the enactment of the FOI Bill has not formed part of its response. Surely one of the most effective ways to reduce corruption is to open up government institutions to public scrutiny, enabling citizens to monitor the performance of those whom they have entrusted with power and public resources? Why then, has the Bill been postponed yet again?
According to the Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services, Lieutenant General Ronnie Shikapwasha, the Bill has been delayed because the government is still making consultations regarding its content in various countries, such as the United Kingdom. The pretext is that there it is better to wait and refine the law than pass a flawed piece of legislation. While this is certainly a logical conclusion, the fact is that the Bill was first withdrawn from parliament in 2002 for exactly this reason. The government has thus had seven years in which to make all the necessary consultations.
Indeed, a succession of Information Ministers have stated that it would be wrong to rush the law and that further consultations are needed. In 2006 Mike Mulongoti argued that ‘the government is not in a rush to pass the Freedom of Information Bill as Zambians have previously lived without it,’ conveniently ignoring the fact that Zambians have also been forced to live without democracy in the past but nevertheless called for its immediate implementation. Similarly, during an FOI Bill fact-finding mission in Africa and Europe in 2008, Vernon Mwaanga stated that ‘we do not want to rush this law.’
While such a vital piece of legislation should certainly not be rushed, its implementation must at least be carried out with some urgency. To delay recognizing the public’s right to information (RTI) without cause contravenes international human rights law. For example, Article 19 of the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Zambia acceded to in 1984, protects the freedom ‘to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers.’
The importance of RTI is also recognised in both the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, 1981 and the African Union’s Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, 2002. The latter document asserts that ‘public bodies hold information not for themselves but as custodians of the public good and everyone has a right to access this information, subject only to clearly defined rules established by law.’ While in Zambia, the Mung’omba Constitution Review Committee concluded that the Constitution should guarantee the ‘freedom to receive or impart information or ideas.’
The importance of RTI is by no means limited to its role as an anti-corruption tool. Opening up government institutions to public scrutiny also functions to strengthen democracy since citizens are more fully informed and therefore better situated when it comes to choosing politicians to represent them. It also enables citizens to more accurately assess the performance of politicians, which increases the pressure on those in power to deliver on their election promises. In this way, RTI facilitates the development of participatory democratic institutions that are responsive to the will of the people and which consequently entrench democratic stability.
RTI also has a significant role to play in the promotion of people-centred social and economic development. If the government and private companies are obligated to provide information, the public are better placed to assess whether projects will meet their own development priorities. They are also able to determine why development projects might have failed and, as we have already seen, are in a stronger position to uncover corruption scandals such as the one that enveloped the Ministry of Health.
The implementation of effective RTI legislation then, is much too important to be held back further. Whether the delay has occurred as a result of genuine concern over the contents of the Bill or from a lack of political will, seven years is clearly a sufficient period of time in which to consult other nations and refine the contents of the legislation accordingly.
The dangers of corruption to the lives of Zambians has been made clear by the recent scandal. In Transparency International’s 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index Zambia scored 2.8 out of 10, with a score of zero being ‘highly corrupt’ and ten ‘highly clean’. While this score constitutes a slight improvement on 2007, the figures do not take into account this year’s health scandal. Moreover, a score as low as 2.8 clearly demands that efforts to counter corruption be further intensified. The Zambian government may have taken positive steps towards establishing greater accountability and transparency but without legally recognising that the public have a right to monitor those people whose actions directly impact upon their lives, the fight against corruption cannot be won.