Moviment Graffitti won an important court case this week, one that highlights the need for the government and authorities in this country to be more open and transparent.
The NGO had, in 2022, filed a Freedom of Information request asking for a copy of any/all contracts of acquisition, transfer, emphyteusis, lease, encroachment, usufruct, use, tolerance, encroachment or concession of any form relating to Comino. Unsurprisingly given the way we have seen various entities act in the past, the request was refused by the Lands Authority, arguing that it didn’t have the resources to conduct this exercise.
Things didn’t end there. Graffitti filed a complaint with the Information and Data Protection Commissioner, to investigate the case, and, the court judgement reads, the Commissioner ordered the authority to “provide access to the documentation which meets the terms of the FOI request and is held by the Public Authority after redacting any personal data contained in such documentation; and Transfer the FOI request to the respective public authority in relation to documentation which is not held by the Lands Authority.”
Appeals by the authority were filed and the case eventually landed before the courts.
The authority had also argued commercial sensitivity. After the Commissioner began looking into the case, the Authority found contracts dated 2010, 2015 and 2018 with the Tourism Authority, where in conceded the title of three leases inside Comino. It said that since the information came to light after its submissions it couldn’t refer the request to the Tourism Authority as the system doesn’t permit it.
The appellant authority stated that it had informed the Commissioner that the 108 files it had found were related solely to the Blue Lagoon. It mentioned that these files were not about encroachments, as those fall under the jurisdiction of the Malta Tourism Authority, and therefore any requests related to them had to be sent to the Malta Tourism Authority. Other legal arguments were made.
Among other things, the court referred to the justification given by the appellant authority, stating that the requested information would require significant resources. The court noted that although the authority, as the administrator of all public lands in Malta, Gozo, and Comino, manages a substantial volume of properties, this court does not expect to receive such a justification from the appellant authority, especially since it is in the process of digitizing all its systems. In the digital era we are in, the court said, a public authority should certainly not appear before the Courts and attempt to justify its failure to cooperate with a request for information by claiming that the collection of such information requires a large amount of resources.
The court denied the authority’s appeal.
We have seen many Freedom of Information requests filed by various newsrooms and organisations over the years get rejected, and a number of those rejections are challenged and then get overturned.
One cannot stress enough the importance of transparency, and one cannot stress enough the need for authorities to start accepting such requests more often. Public agreements and contracts are signed with public land and public funds, and people have a right to know what is being done with their land and their funds. Transparency must be the order of the day.
Authorities need to be more open to issuing information when it is requested.