Withholding information conceals crime, corruption and lack of competence
ExpiredINTERVIEW with Rodoljub Sabic, Serbian Commissioner for the Information of Public Importance
Witholding information conceals crime, corruption and lack of competence
Milos M. Miloradovic When the Free Access to Information Act was passed, everybody thought it would bring order to the Serbian political scene, as politicians' work will be under close scrutiny of Serbian citizens. It has been two years since the appointment of Rodoljub Sabic as the first Serbian Information Commissioner. In the interview to the daily Danas, Sabic says that he is pleased with what has been done in his field. However, he says, the authorities find it hard to accept that in addition to the obligation to provide the information when the public requests it there is also the obligation to provide access to certain information even when the public does not explicitly request it. _
Foreign investment
You reacted to the Foreign Investment Bill. Why?
- I reacted to the idea of needing the consent of the foreign investor and completely excluding the possibility of public access to the information about foreign investment. There is no doubt that some information concerning foreign investment may and should have a certain level of secrecy, but it should not be absolute and it should not apply to all information. The idea of putting the application of a domestic law completely in hands of a foreign investor is not only irritating as being a semi-colonial in nature, but also as being open to an indefinite number of interpretations of the concept of foreign investment, that - by eliminating the public - it leaves the door wide open for corruption to enter. At the time, in the discussion with the President of the Parliament, he assured me that such a bill will never be included in the Parliamentary agenda. So far, he has been right, but we'll see what happens in the future.
- The assessment of our results as good, in fact very good, was given by a number of objective observers. It can be found in the reports on the application of the law, such as those by the observers from the non-government sector - OSCE, Council of Europe, EU Commission - as well as by journalists' associations and my colleagues, people who deal with the same or similar issues.
I think that the facts make best argument for such an assessment. For instance, in 2005, the Commissioner's Bureau received over 450 complaints and in 2006 there were around 1900, more than four times as many. Over 65 per cent of those complaints have already been resolved. This shows that the trust of Serbian citizens in this government body has increased, that they seek our assistance in the protection of their rights and that they actually get the protection they need. All disputes based on complaints against the Commissioner's resolutions and processed before the Serbian Supreme Court have been resolved. All complaints have been rejected. As much as it was objectively possible, a lot has been done in the field of education of citizens and civil servants. A great step forward was made by passing the new Constitution which guarantees the right to access information. The Bureau did good work, although it employs four times as few people as the National Parliament had approved. A very good Legal Guide was published in Serbian and seven languages of national minorities, including the Romany, which, I think, is a unique case.
Another important detail is that the Bureau has been spending the allocated funds very economically. The Commissioner and his Bureau will save over 50 per cent of allocated funds this year - out of the allocated 31 million Dinars, only some 12 million Dinars were spent by November. In addition to the Commissioner's activities, there are many more other activities that are as important for the application of the Free Access to Information Act that we are not happy about and, frankly, that cause more reasons to be concerned about than proud of.
Has raising citizens' awareness of the right to be informed been successful, and how much has it contributed to changing the status quo, regardless of the problems encountered on the way?
- Yes, citizens, NGOs and the media increasingly exercise their right to access information. This pro-active approach has already given good results on various levels, such as combating corruption, protection of various human rights, environment protection, etc. The potential of the law has been confirmed, but I do think that it is not used as much as we would like it to be.
Although it was asked over thirty times to administer the Commissioner's decisions but the Serbian Government failed to act on a single request. Why?
- According to the law, The Commissioner's decisions are legally binding for all government bodies and, if necessary, Serbian Government should ensure that the decisions are administered. Many decisions have been administered by the government bodies voluntarily. However, you are right to say that the Government was asked to ensure that the decisions are carried out on a couple of dozen occasions and that the Government failed to do so in all cases. Why - that's the question for the Government, nor for me. By the way, I have appealed to the Government twice to create an efficient mechanism for the administration of The Commissioner's decisions, but my initiative was ignored.
A couple of months ago you said that the authorities had failed to do their task with regard to the law application. Have things changed since?
- Of course they have, they have been changing for two years now. The problem is that things do not change as quickly as they should. The government obviously cannot comprehend that apart from the obligation to provide the information when the public requests it there is also the obligation to provide access to certain information even when the public does not request it. The way I see it is that in the country burdened with corruption the information that should be made public is the information about the management of public financial resources. Such information should be accessible at any given moment, including being published on the Internet. In my opinion, such an approach could give great results in combating corruption. In the recent talks with the representatives of World Bank they agreed with me. As for education, we have so far collaborated with the non-government sector. A number of seminars, round tables, radio and TV programmes have been organised in co-operation with the OSCE Mission to Serbia, members of the NGO Coalition for Free Access to Information, Open Society Fund, Transparency Serbia, CESID, Association of US Lawyers. Progress has been made, but a training programme for civil servants that is defined and coordinated on the state level is definitely lacking. This is, in fact, one of the conclusions, and recommendations, of the latest GRECO ( Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption ) reports. As regards education and training, I have also suggested to the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government to incorporate the exercise of the right to access information in the state exam. To date, this initiative has been ignored as well.
It is a fact that the government bodies still fail to meet all their obligations. What is the problem - is it ignorance or irresponsibility?
- Both. But, without a doubt, there must be another reason too. By withholding the information they often try to hide their own incompetence, misuse, even crime and corruption.
Serbia is one of 13 countries that have a Commissioner as an independent body. However, you cannot administer your own decisions. How do you think this issue could be resolved?
- It is very important that there is a will to execute those decisions. If there were no will to do that it would not matter whether the administration of the Commissioner's decisions were ensured by the Government, as is the case in Serbia, or the Commissioner was granted more extensive authorisation, as is the case in other countries.
You have often spoken about the lack of laws that the good application of the Free Access to Information Act depends on. What laws did you have in mind?
- Yes, the fact that we have no modern laws harmonised with the EU standards that would govern the classification of secret information and protection of privacy is our great disadvantage. This will present an even greater problem in the application of the Access to Information Act, as well in the EU integration and Euro-Atlantic integration processes. The problem, which we should really be embarrassed about, is that Serbia is one of the last post-socialist countries that has not passed a law that regulates the treatment of files of secret intelligence services.
Slovenian Information Commissioner has recently paid us a visit. It turns out that there are five as many people working in the Slovenian Commissioner's Bureau than in the Serbian one.
- Yes, something like that. Slovenia is much smaller than Serbia, does not have as many problems as we do, but its Commissioner's Bureau employs much more people. Besides, the Slovenian Commissioner has a larger budget at his disposal and greater authorities. This, of course, does not only reflect Slovenian attitude to the Commissioner, but also their attitude to the law regulating access to information. It also shows their commitment to apply European laws consistently. Slovenia, a former communist country, in that respect certainly stands out. In addition to this, Slovenia recognises the importance of transparency for the smooth progress of democratic transition. The efficiency of Slovenian EU integration project and its results in fighting corruption are the best examples of how the transition process should be managed.
