Appeals Tribunal will deny the public the right to critical information, according to the Access to Information Advisory Committee of Stakeholders."These rules will give the Tribunal the power to levy costs against the applicant if they deem the appeal 'unfounded and frivolous or vexatious," the committee said in a statement.
The committee is urging the Appeals Tribunal, "to send back these rules for the correction of all difficulties before proceeding to hear appeals".
In addition, the committee has urged the Minister of Information, Senator Burchell Whiteman, to intervene to ensure that the new rules, embodying the spirit of the Access to Information Act 2002, "are expeditiously drafted so that the Tribunal can begin to operate".
According to the committee, headed by Dr. Carolyn Gomes, "the Tribunal must be accessible to the public and persons must be able to feel comfortable bringing appeals to the Tribunal, not threatened by draconian and unnecessary possibilities as to sanctions".
According to the committee, the costs being proposed could potentially include those for "all submissions to the Appeals Tribunal, including those incurred by the party or body against whom the appeal was made".
There is also concern about Rule 27 which purports to create an offence for any person "who fails to comply with any order or requirement of the Appeals Tribunal". Punishment on conviction could result in a fine of $500,000. "In contract, if an officer of a government agency is convicted of a similar offence under Rule 27, they would be liable to a fine of only $50,000," the statement noted.
The statement added: "The Access to Information Advisory Stakeholders Committee, like the Appeals Tribunal, is deeply concerned about the delays and missteps in getting the rules finalised. We are, however, more concerned that the Tribunal operate as an accessible Tribunal, serving to ensure the maximum openness in the operations of the Access to Information Act. These new draft rules have the potential to stifle that process before it has heard a single appeal and make the process as laborious, off-putting and expensive as a request for Judicial Review."
