By Anastacia Karimu If there is ever a law that can be considered a people’s law, it is the Right to Information legislation. The Right to Information Bill (RTI), which aims to grant the Ghanaian public access to government held information, was first drafted in 2002 and has since then undergone several revisions. It was finally laid before Parliament on Friday, February 5, 2010. While the Bill makes a fair attempt to grant maximum access to information to the Ghanaian public, certain provisions still need to be revised to ensure that the people of Ghana derive maximum benefit from the legislation. One such provision is the appeals and implementation mechanism. Under the current Bill, an applicant who is refused access to information by an information officer can seek redress with the sector minister (Clause 38). If the sector Minister should also refuses an applicant’s request for information, the applicant then appeals to the Supreme Court (Clause 42). The Bill places the responsibility of implementation of the law with the Minister of Justice/Attorney-General (Clause 53). The same Attorney-General/Minister of Justice is made a party to proceedings before the Supreme Court when a sector minister refuses to grant an applicant’s request for access to information (Clause 54). Allowing for internal review of an information officer’s decision on an application for information ensures a quick and efficient disposal of grievances that applicants may have. Nevertheless, making the Supreme Court the next point of redress for applicants under this Bill could defeat the purpose of the law. How can the ordinary Ghanaian afford an appeal at the Supreme Court when they can barely make ends meet? This is a sure way of defeating the Bill. This gives the impression that there is no appeals mechanism, since the first is to Government, whose officer is trying to withhold information, and a second body (The Supreme Court) which is inaccessible for the ordinary Ghanaian. Furthermore, investing the power of implementation in the hands of the Minister of Justice/Attorney-General is a clear conflict of interest. At the heart of due process lies the idea of fairness. Hence making the Minister of Justice/Attorney-General, a cabinet minister and member of Government, the one to decide whether or not to give information makes her a judge in her own case and therefore every tenet of justice is breached. This is not something that any law should entertain. The power of appeal and implementation should therefore be vested in an independent information commission, specially created for this legislation. Given the difficulty the Ministry of Justice/Attorney-General faces in carrying out its current mandate, adding the responsibility of implementation of the RTI law will lead to inefficiency and neglect to the detriment of the RTI legislation. Thus the creation of an independent information commission will be advantageous in that it can serve as quasi-judicial body, making proceedings before it free and less cumbersome. The Information Commission will be more accessible to the public than the Supreme Court, which many, including those who can afford, may not have the determination and courage to appear before. Above all, he will be seen as an unbiased authority. On the other hand, the general public will tend to have more confidence in an independent information commission. In India for example, court fees are not charged, neither are lawyers required to be hired by the applicants before they can appear before the Information Commission. In addition, the Supreme Court will not be overburdened with right to information related disputes. Moreover, an Information Commission can serve as a champion of transparency in government bodies. This will ensure transparency and increased efficiency in public administration. In countries like Mexico and the UK, Information Commissions are not merely adjudicatory bodies. They are empowered to develop schemes for proactive disclosure and programmes for improving records management in consultation with Ministers and other senior officers in Government to smoothen the implementation of the law. Likewise, an independent commission will be able to monitor the implementation of the RTI Law and submit an unbiased report to Parliament regarding the performance of public institutions in responding to information request by the public. This report is more likely to be objective than one submitted by the Minister of Justice. Finally, an independent information commission will ensure that exemption clauses are strictly interpreted and citizens’ requests are not arbitrarily hindered. If we are sincere about giving real opportunity to citizens to have access to information, then we should have an independent information commission that will be more transparent, objective and pro-citizens, rather than a government body that will definitely be pro-government and biased. While an independent information commission alone cannot ensure an effective implementation of the right to information law, it can increase the peoples’ confidence in the law and their participation in our democratic regime. Let us pass an effective right to information law and give the people of Ghana the equal chance to develop. The writer is the Project Assistant on the Right to Information Project at the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.