Accra, Dec. 12, GNA - Mr Frank Agyekum, Government Spokesperson on Governance, on Tuesday said Ministries, Department and Agencies (MDAs) were not adequately prepared to handle the pressure of request for information from the public when the Freedom of Information Bill was enacted.

He noted that record keeping at the MDAs was so poor that it would be difficult for their staff to access certain information and delivered on request to the public.

Mr Agyekum made the observation when addressing the closing session of a two-day conference on 'Media and National Development'

organized by the National Media Commission (NMC) and sponsored by United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Accra.

The conference attended by more than 100 Journalists and Media Practitioners, discussed issues on media and national security, culture, the Right Information Bill, media regulation and monitoring. It was to evolve recommendations for a more efficient and effective operations of the NMC and the media.

Mr Agyekum therefore; suggested that prior to enactment of the law, recorded keeping at the MDAs should be revamped otherwise the law would operate in futility and people's right to information would be affected.

Mr Kwesi Afriyie-Badu, Chief Executive of KAB Consult asked the media and the public to make the Government accountable to its 1996 campaign promise to provide a legal regime that would allow the public access to information.

Nana Oye Lithur, Co-ordinator of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, said Journalist were not enthusiastic about the enactment of the law and asked 'Is it because you get information easily even without the law?'

She said Journalists expected to educate and inform the public, should play an active role in advocating for the drafting and expeditious enactment of the law to give the public access to information and not only the media.

Nana Lithur noted that the bill had lots of defects that needed to be dealt with before its enactment otherwise its purpose would be defeated.

She said there were too many exemptions, which included information in the possession of private and public organizations and individuals considered to be inimical to national economy or security should not be given out.

Nana Lithur said whereas it was necessary to be cautious in providing certain information to the public, it was too wide an exemption to allow private organization freedom under the law, including those who had access to state funds in the execution of contracts on behalf of the state.

'What about the private individual food vendor for instance who kills someone through food poisoning, should she also be free from giving information on how her food caused the death of someone,=94 she asked.

Nana Lithur pointed out that state agencies; private or public institutions that had information on behalf of the public, should be enjoined by law to provide the information to the public.

Nana Lithur observed that the Oath of Secrecy and evidence decree which public officials sworn to at the time of taking office had a potential of hampering the purpose of the law when enacted. She therefore; suggested that all constitutional provisions should be properly harmonized to ensure that they did not conflict with each other in practice.

'Lack of Maximum disclosure as contained in the provisions of the bill also falls short of international standards in such laws and has the potential of hampering the need for transparency which the law seeks to promote,' she said

Nana Lithur said the bill in addition lacked a punitive regime, which should spell out the punishment for public officers who refused to divulge information within the given time to a citizen who requested it rightfully.

She pointed out that the bill made the Attorney-General a player and a referee in dealing with public information, saying that it was important to give the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) the authority to deal with issues of violations of people's rights to information to ensure effective check on state institutions.

'If the power to deal with public officials who violate people's right to information is left for the A-Gs department as the bill proposes now, who would take the A-G's department on if it violates an individual's right to information,' she asked.

Nana Oye said with the current state of the bill more advocacy, was needed to reshape it into a document that would reflect the aspirations of the public.

She therefore; called on the media, civil society and the public to continue to make representations to the A-G for a review of some of the provisions of the bill before its enactment.