In a democratic state, certain information kept by the government should, and needs to be made available to the public. When that information is kept restricted, or excuses are found for not providing it, then that is when people should begin to worry.

Over the past years, the more controversial contracts signed by the government involving public funds or public land had been issued with important parts being redacted.  At other times, information was not provided citing ‘commercial sensitivity‘ as an excuse.

This always leads to serious doubts raised about the correctness of the agreements, and raises concern as to whether any foul play was involved. This, of course, leads to a mistrust in Malta’s institutions, and this very situation helped contribute to the distressing time the country finds itself in.

A Freedom of Information request was refused despite near identical requests being accepted in the past. This newsroom had asked for information relating to persons of trust and positions of trust, consultants and all politically appointed persons within government ministries, public entities, public boards, including the job title of those in such positions, their financial package, a description of their duties, and where possible, their name.

In the past, such Freedom of Information requests by this newsroom were, for the most part, accepted, yet this year they were outright refused.

The reason given was that “the document requested is not held by the Public Authority and the undersigned has no grounds for believing that the document is held by, or connected more closely with the functions of, another public authority.”

This is absolutely unacceptable. Such basic information regarding government spending of taxpayer funds on such positions that have been at the centre of controversy over the past years should be made publically available.

The response by the various ministries did link to Parliamentary Questions that provided small detail, but was nothing close to what was requested through the Freedom of Information request.

This newsroom has contested this decision, however the mere rejection of the request given the precedence created by past requests being accepted is tantamount to the government hiding this information from the taxpayer.

In the past it was found that over 700 people have held such positions in 2018. That is no small number of people.

If Freedom of Information requests are refused like so, then what is the point of having such an ACT in place. It should be there to facilitate the issuing of information between the government and the public, and not hinder information which is so obviously in the public interest to know.

Another Freedom of Information request was recently refused. The Malta Independent had requested that the Armed Forces of Malta’s internal inquiry into whether there is any widespread problem of racism or extremist groups within the Armed Forces which was reported in the media as having been concluded. This is the inquiry which was launched after the shooting of Lassana Cisse and the subsequent charging of two AFM soldiers for the murder.

The request however was refused. The reason given was that following the death of Lassana Cisse Souleymane, criminal proceedings were initiated against two AFM members, which case for their alleged involvement is still sub judice. “The applicant seeks the disclosure of documentation which would, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the fair trial of a person or the impartial adjudication of a particular case by any court. Disclosure of such documentation is exempted by virtue of the Act. Additionally, the Armed Forces of Malta considers the documentation requested to also be exempt from disclosure bearing in mind that its disclosure could publish opinions, advice or recommendations obtained, prepared or recorded, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place in the course of, or for the purposes of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of the AFM.”