Jamadar’s 2004 ruling contradicts IC secrecy policy

While the Integrity Commission (IC) is insisting that the cloak of secrecy must be upheld at all cost, a court ruling has shown otherwise. In a judgment in 2004 between Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma and the commission, Justice Peter Jamadar ruled that the confidential information referred to in the declaration of the Integrity in Public Life Act (IPLA) must contain particulars “of the income, assets and liabilities” of the declarant, his/her spouse and his/her dependant children.

Sharma had taken the commission to court after his application to request information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was declined. Questioning the commission’s decision Jamadar stated: “Thus, what Section: 20 deems secret and confidential are the declarations themselves  (ie their contents) and the records of the commission in respect of those declarations as well as the records and information relating to such declarations and information.”

Jamadar further stated that the information requested did not amount to records or information “in respect of” or “relating to” any “declarations filed” with the commission. “I accept the Integrity Commission is under a duty to keep and have records and information of all persons who are required to file both declarations and statements of registrable interests. It would be most remarkable if the Integrity Commission entrusted with the responsibilities that the IPLA gives it, were not to know the persons in public life who were expected to comply with the provisions of the IPLA. The presumption of regularity leads to the assumption that the Integrity Commission has that information.”

Jamadar further noted that it was instructive to note the following definitions relating to the IPLA:
• Document in Section (4) of the FOIA which is basically “information recorded in any form….”
•Official document which is a document held by a public authority in connection with its functions as…” And, also to note that in Section (3) of the FOIA, the public’s right to access is basically to information in the possession of public authorities.

In his conclusion, Jamadar stated: “In any event, in my opinion where a request is made for information under part III of the FOIA, as here, a public authority is under an obligation to give reasons for any refusal to grant access to the information. This is so even when the refusal is because the information sought is exempt information. In so far as the Integrity Commission was relying on Section: 20 of the IPLA, it was for the purposes of the FOIA relying on the provisions of Section: 34 of that Act and its reasons ought to have been given pursuant to Section: 23 of the FOIA.”

Jamadar concluded that none of the information requested is deemed secret or confidential pursuant to Section: 20 of the ICPA or exempt pursuant to part IV and Section: 34 of the FOIA. The commission has been embroiled in controversy following the publication of an article highlighting the row relating to a decision to have suspended deputy chairman Gladys Gafoor recuse herself from a matter involving former attorney general John Jeremie.