Abusing the Freedom of Information Act
Where the hell is Ramesh 'Lawsuit' Maharaj when you need him? He seems to be wooing some hard-back maxi men with sweet lyrics. I don't know if they will be voting UNC come the next election though, given the area they hail from.
Where he is really needed, since he is all so fired up and eager to sue every man, woman and goat in the government, is to take a test case to the High Court or even to the Privy council, and let the courts rule on whether the government can really withhold information (on its spending) for frivolous and/or dubious reasons.
Culture Minister Marlene McDonald cited a clause from the Freedom of Information Act which exempts documents from being disclosed if it unreasonably reveals personal information of an individual.
So is it unreasonable to want to know who receives our tax dollars and how much?
Referring to section four of the Act, McDonald read the explanation of personal information which included information relating to education, medical, psychological, employment history and financial transactions.
By the same argument, that sentence negates anyone from disclosing information to the Integrity Commission. All they have to do is cite financial and personal information will be revealed, and then tell the IC where to shove it.
Where a request by a person other than a person referred to in subsection (2) is made to a public authority for access to a document containing personal information of any individual (including a deceased individual) and the public authority decides to grant access to the document, the public authority shall, if practicable, notify the individual who is the subject of that information (or in the case of a deceased individual, that individual’s next-of-kin) of the decision and of the right to apply to the High Court for judicial review of the decision and the time within which the application for review is required to be made.
Shame that the Law Association, and others, are not commenting on this, because the Act does seem to allow disclosure and in the instance where the individual involved objects, s/he has to obtain a ruling by the High Court to prevent the information from being disclosed.
More autocracy from PNM and Pa-trick, and less transparency.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
- 231 reads
"So is it unreasonable to want to know who receives our tax dollars and how much?"
Buh how. In a Monkey Island somewhey, dee dam fool population eh cyare a rat's ass what happen. Dey so busy preparin' fuh Carnaval, looking at porn movies, on drugs, fixin' up dey kitchen wid State handouts, duckin an' divin from bullets and stray penises - a sizeable majority - dey eh have time tuh worry 'bout who doin' what wid dey taxes.
Aye, yuh eh see yuh pardner flyin' rong in jet fuh $USD 20,000. Dey go buy a B52 bomber and drop bomb een dey backside jes now, an' dey eh go even know wha' happen - watch!
Yuh notice nobody eh saying "boo" bout dee Sherman McNicols issue or dee Sat Sharma issue. Nah...daize tomorrows toilet paper a'ready.
Yuh eh see dey bazoodee now wid catamaran an ting? So who cares bout tax dollars. Man, money flowin' lef' right and centre dong dey.
....Firstly I must repeat the old saying, "you get what you pay for"...and Trinis getting just that and more...!
...These people operating by "VAPS" and "making up things as they go along", and the sad part is that they are getting away with it "scot free", because nobody really taking them to task for it, and they know it too well...they have recognized they have "no opposition" to challenge them, and so its all "a song and dance" for them, except the people of TnT paying the piper, and they having a laugh at the people's expense...!
...it all started with Attorney General Brigid Annisette-George refusing to divulge the legal fees for Douglas-Mendes SC, paid to him by the Government (read taxpayers) to attend some legal matters... including criminal proceedings against CJ Sat Sharma...!
...you see, Annisette-George thinks she is the brightest bulb in the room...so she caveat the refusal by saying that her position was a change of government policy and not a blanket position but rather a case by case one...!
...the sad part is that in the same news report dated June 6, 2008, the former AG John Jeremie released the very same type of information with respect to the same Mendes SC, from the AG's office dated April 30, 2007...in response to an application made under the very said Freedom of Information Act 1999, the very same piece of legislation that was used by Annisette George to refuse to divulge the requested information...!
...in fact the office of the AG also released the fees of Queen's Counsel Sir Timothy Cassel for his handling of State Briefs...!... I consider Sir Timothy very well learned and educated...!
...similarly, former AG John Jeremie must have also looked at the FIA 1999 before he too released the information, so that it was not in breach of Sir Cassel's privacy...there was no complaint filed by Sir Cassel...and there was no complaint filed by Mendes on that occasion as to breaches of his privacy...!
...so this is why I say, Annisette-George must be the brightest bulb in the room...?
...so now its Marlene McDonald trying to shine too, and being able to read the "Freedom of Information Act" too, regurgitating the same old horse manure by saying what she reads and feeling that 's what she thinks she is saying...is what she read...but I am not too sure she understands what she reads...it looks like they just making up things as they go along...?
...you see the problem as I see it, is that if the Freedom of Information Act 1999 is "statute and law" then a shift or change in "policy" can't overide the "statute and law" as I know it...unless the "law" is changed to reflect the "policy"...and only if it's indeed legal and in accordance with the constitution to do so...and I don't see Annisette-Geroge or Marlene McDonald in a position to make that interpretation all by their lonely self...they are not in my view capable individuals to do so...in fact I don't see them as being able to chew gum and walk at the same time...and even so without stepping on their tongue...that is...!
...so my point is, that I am in full agreement that someone or group need to challenge that "change in policy" which she introduced, which in fact may overide and violate the statute and the law itself...!
...what is also interesting to note, is that Annisette-Geroge is also saying that its not a blanket position change, but rather a case by case one...? Wow, what an Attorney General...?...is she saying that she is not going to apply the law in a fair and consistent manner, but selectively and pick and choose at that ...? Is this what she is saying, thats like if and when "she chooses"...to release information when she feels like it, and to withhold when she feels to?!... this must be real power gone to the head...just like her leader Pastor Manning...?
...if something is not done, then Trinis are in real trouble...but like I said before, they getting what they paid for...so they should not complain...this is only the beginning...this is exactly what you get...as I also said before...!
...this also happens often "when you take grave diggers and make them bankers" !
...what do you really expect...! even more revealing is Bhoendratt -Tewarie's June 26, 2008 article "Is underdevelopment a state of mind? ...
...As I read it, it forced me to think of the likes of Annisette-Geroge and Marlene McDonald and finally, yes, my people of Trinidad and Tobago...and to recite a line from him... ..."underdevelopment is indeed "a state of mind"...!
...how sad but so true my friends...!
...goodluck...Trini.t.o.o