A report published this week highlighted some issues with the Freedom of Information laws and practices in Malta, an area that needs to be improved in a way which would guarantee more transparency, more efficiency, and fewer refusals.

The idea behind the Freedom of Information Act is for any citizen to be able to request information from public entities. It is an essential tool used by journalists to keep the public informed on issues of public interest.

The Monitoring Freedom of Information in Europe report, published by the Media Freedom Rapid Response Group, shed a spotlight on Freedom of Information requests by journalists in four countries, one of which is Malta.

Among other things, the report highlights delays as one issue. Firstly, the FOI Act allows for a response to a request to be made within 20 working days, and may be extended up to 40 working days. A Researcher and Advocacy Officer at the Daphne Caruana  Galizia Foundation observes that authorities frequently delay responses by requesting  extensions  at the last moment, only to reject the request eventually after the second deadline has expired, the report reads.

The report states that the informal complaints procedure, used by an applicant when a request is rejected, would "in practice" see the complaint "usually returned to the same person who rejected the request in the first instance, undermining the purpose of the appeal procedure."

Following this, appeals are then filed before the Information and Data Protection Commissioner, followed by the Data Protection Appeals Tribunal. The whole process is lengthy.

Then there are the reasons why requests are refused. The report notes that in some instances information is not processed in the form of documents, meaning they cannot be requested under the FOI Act. This is a loophole which should be fixed.

Another issue is the other reasons given by public entities to reject requests.

The report cites an example. When the Daphne Foundation requested access to the contract for comedian David Walliams over him being hired to host the film awards in Malta back in 2022, the information was withheld citing a non disclosure agreement, it says. It was only published after a long legal battle.

Another example that comes to mind is when The Malta Film Commission had refused two Freedom of Information requests filed by The Malta Independent in order to ascertain how much tax payer money was spent on the extravagant Malta Film Awards back in 2022. On the first, the reason for refusal was that the documents were still being compiled at the time. On the second request, the response this newsroom received was that the Malta Film Commission was not in a position to apportion invoices paid for services provided during the Malta Film Week, in order to identify costs for the Malta Film Awards night only.

There are, of course, other examples, such as the government refusing a freedom of information request for ministers' wealth declarations that had been filed by the Times of Malta.

These are clear examples of ways public entities get out of providing information which, quite frankly, should be easily publicly available.

There are instances where a government denying a freedom of information request is understandable, such as if it pertains to national security for instance.

But the above examples are instances where transparency should have been the order of the day.