Freedom of information should be a constitutional right

When the last Constitution Commission, headed by former High Court Judge Christopher Blackman, issued its report, it faced much backlash from the public for its perceivedly tepid review and recommendations.

 

The commission was ostensibly given a “forward-thinking” mandate to review, modernise, and reshape the island’s constitution for a 21st-century world. It was required to meet with Barbadians from every station and background to produce a reformulated constitution that reflected contemporary values, aspirations and fundamental issues.

 

Established in June 2022, the ten-member body’s 360-page document, produced in 2024, offered great expectations but was criticised for falling well short of expectations, given the fanfare that surrounded the island’s shift away from the British monarchy to republican status in 2021.

 

As far as the commission was concerned, its final report delved deeply into “key areas such as basic constitutional principles, citizenship, the construction of modern governmental institutions, and the protection and promotion of human rights”.

 

Importantly, it also included a draft bill that could become a replacement for the current constitution.

 

Those who operate in the Barbadian media ecosystem as news journalists understand that guaranteed access to information under a robust Freedom of Information (FOI) framework would be a clear demonstration that Barbados was operating under a modern, mature governance structure.

 

Modern FOI legislation exists in Trinidad and Tobago, and in the British territory of the Cayman Islands. The existence of such legislation, guaranteeing access to information—especially involving the government—has made for a vibrant media and an informed and engaged public.

 

When the government sought to introduce the highly controversial Cybercrime Bill, it was forced to go back to the drawing board and invite public comment. Among those who journeyed to Parliament to register their disagreement with the proposed legislation in its present form was General Manager of Voice of Barbados, Anthony Greene.

 

Greene argued that what Barbados needed was not a clampdown on robust public discussion on the internet, but freedom of information, where facts can be accessed by credible media. Such an environment would reduce the need for people to resort to rumours and innuendo.

 

At the heart of his argument was the idea that FOI legislation was essential for empowering citizens. With such laws in place, individuals, journalists, and civil society groups can request and receive data on government policies, decision-making processes, and financial records.

 

This access would serve as a powerful check on power, discouraging corruption and promoting ethical governance. When government actions are open to public examination, there is a reduced risk of secretive decision-making and misuse of public funds—a benefit that ultimately translates into improved public trust and enhanced democratic participation.

 

Around the world, ordinary citizens are coming to grips with the value of access to information to ensure that processes are not abused and taxpayers’ monies are being well spent.

 

Right here at home, it is disturbing to read the lamentations of the just-retired Auditor General, Leigh Trotman, who—even with his guaranteed constitutional powers and insulation from governmental vengeance—was faced with non-cooperation from some officials.

 

In a statement that was an indictment of governance in this country, the Auditor General, who served for almost two decades, stated in his 2024 and final report: “. . . . there was some reluctance by entities to provide information for the audits.”

 

He added: “This was unfortunate. Firstly, it is a requirement of our laws that this information should be provided; secondly, the lack of cooperation means that the government agencies would not have gotten the necessary feedback on their operations; and thirdly, that the agencies responsible for using public funds should be scrutinised and reports made available for Parliament and the public at large.”

 

Trotman warned: “The matter of withholding information from the Office of the Auditor General should not be taken lightly.”

 

If we return to the contention of Mr Greene and connect the argument he made for FOI legislation, it is a logical conclusion that freedom of information—which was completely absent from the Constitutional Reform Commission’s report—would represent a forward-thinking approach to governance.

 

We firmly hold that FOI laws would not only fortify democratic institutions but also enhance public trust, boost economic interactions through a more credible public sector, and empower the media to serve its fundamental watchdog role.