Since the 2011 Public Information Act is
deemed one of the current regime’s few success stories, both informal efforts
to restrict access to information of clear public importance and legislative
moves with direct impact on such access deserve scrutiny.
Under Yanukovych’s
presidency, only a carefully selected group of journalists have been given a no
less edited view of what was once an official State-owned residence. All efforts to obtain information about
public funding spent on the residence have been thwarted, and all planned
peaceful protests anywhere near the gates of the vast estate banned by the
courts. In May this year two Democratic Alliance activists were jailed for five and seven days over entirely peaceful protest.
“Open Access” viewings in September were
disrupted in 8 out of 20 cities. In Kyiv
on Sept. 27, around 30 inebriated down-and-outs occupied the first rows of the
cinema, smoked, let off smoke bombs and generally disrupted the viewing. They were wearing badges with the words TRAMP
TV, making it clear that somebody had organized their stunt. Shortly after they were finally removed, the police
appeared and demanded that the cinema be cleared, supposedly because of a bomb
alert.
The authorities in the
Crimea were especially zealous with the viewings disrupted in both Simferopol and Sevastopol. In Feodosia, the hotel which had agreed in advance
to the film showing received a visitation from people who suggested that the
film showing should not take place to avoid problems. The hotel backed off and
cancelled the showing.
There were equally gross forms of sabotage
in a number of other cities. None of it was formal, and there may not have been
any directives from the President’s Administration. Over the last three years, however, there
have been numerous cases of heavy-handed actions by the police or unidentified
individuals in response to films, posters or protests unflattering to the
president.
Easy to understand, therefore, why
journalists and civic activists addressed their appeal last week to Yanukovych.
Those calls are unfortunately as likely to
go unheeded as others over the last two years since the Public Information Act
was passed. The “Open Access”
documentary films all pertain to ongoing problems with access to
information.
The Public Information Act was widely
praised back in 2011, yet late into 2013 a crucial bill No. 0947 has still not gone
beyond its first reading in parliament.
The bill proposes amendments to around 50 pieces of legislation vitally
needed for the said Act to actually work.
The paperwork, if you don’t scrutinize the dates too closely, can be
waved about in public, while access, at least to really sensitive information,
remains as hampered as ever.
It could become even more restricted if
certain MPs have their way. Three MPs from the ruling Party of the
Regions have tabled a draft bill №3301
which, if
passed, could seriously curtail access to information. It would declare any information about an
individual confidential and therefore able to be divulged only with the
person’s consent. It would also remove
the requirement for bodies of local self-government to publish individual acts making
it even easier for such local bodies to conceal corrupt dealings involving
public funding, allocation of land etc.
There are a number of other provisions which would make it easier for
officials to block access to information.
Even if
this bill is deemed too scandalous to pass, the tendency to justify concealment
of important information on the grounds that the material contains
“confidential” information has already taken hold. On Aug. 9 the District Administrative Court in Kyiv upheld the refusal by the Verkhovna
Rada Office to provide copies of income declarations submitted by the
Parliamentary Speaker and leaders of all party factions. The argument was
that they contain “confidential” information. Any such data can, of
course, be blotted out leaving the information which the public are entitled to
as per both the Public Information Act and anti-corruption legislation. Or it can be used as a convenient shield hiding
all kinds of secrets.
On the subject of shields, one other
initiative, also from Party
of the Regions MPs, should be mentioned. Some of them have recently expressed fear of falling
pieces of technology from the journalists’ balcony in parliament and proposed
inserting a barrier. The injuries are
thankfully hypothetical, unlike the video footage taken by journalists from the
balcony of Party of
the Regions MPs voting illegally for truant colleagues.
The proposed shield would prevent such irritating attention to MPs’ voting
habits.
MPs are in a legislative flurry at present
hastily adopting rough and unrefined draft bills required by the EU before the
Association Agreement can be signed. The
argument is that they can be reworked later and amended via subordinate
legislation.
Like the subordinate legislation needed for
two years now to make the Public Information Act bite. Legislative moves are manifestly not enough especially
when they require political will, the lack of which is an entirely open secret of the greatest public
importance.
Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1381137629
