People have the right to know

THIS week The Namibian carried at least two stories which showed how ignorant some people are about access to information and their blatant disrespect to other people's right to information.
This happened in the same week we celebrated World Press Freedom Day (Monday) under the theme 'Access to Information: the Right to Know'.
In the first instance a managing director of a bank and a chief executive officer of a security company were approached to comment on a serious strike threat by employees who were unhappy with wage-related issues.
The MD of the bank said he was on holiday and would respond later while the CEO refused to respond because it was a Sunday. He even threatened to report the journalist to whoever he had in mind because his Sunday had been disturbed!
The CEO refuses to 'work' on Sunday by answering a call but his employees can work to make money for his company!
In the second article a Councillor - an elected representative of the people - from Okahandja, who chairs the management committee which suspended the town's CEO, said she 'does not speak to the media'.
The bank MD and the security company CEO were contacted because a strike of their employees would have a potentially crippling effect not only on their companies but also affect others such as people who bank there and clients whose buildings are guarded by the security guards.
In all those cases people entrusted with information which could fend off simmering tensions have opted to refuse or withhold vital information and thus prevented the reporter to share with employees, clients or voters - in the case of the councillor.
One of the cornerstones of any healthy democracy is a robust press, a society which demands its rights as well as a government which creates a conducive legal environment.
In Namibia an elected councillor refuses to speak to the media partly because of the absence of an access to information law.
A couple of years back in India a group of villagers from Rajasthan used the access to information law to expose a scam in which some the private sector, called ration-dealers, were ripping them off.
The government ran a massive food subsidy scheme as a social security measure to promote the right to food for the villagers and the ration-dealers were tasked to distribute the food to those who presented themselves with a ration-card.
In turn, the dealer would then claim payment from the government for the food he had distributed to the community.
Some dealers than started claiming that they ran out of subsidy stock and sold from their own to the people, while, in the meantime, recording the transactions as distributions related to the food subsidy scheme.
They claimed money from the government and would thus get paid twice, by both the customer and by the government!
The community used the information law to force government to open up documents related to the claims of the ration-dealers and massive discrepancies were discovered.
It means they they used the law to protect their socio-economic rights and to fight corruption.
It is but one example how the law can be used to benefit the masses.
In Namibia, the absence of such a law has meant that the President can continue to ignore calls to publish reports of commissions of inquiry which have been collecting dust for many years; Police can refuse to have regular media briefings on crime; the Ministry of Fisheries can refuse permission to those who want to enter and photograph the seal culling; or institutions such as NamPower can increase the price of electricity as they wish.
An access to information law empowers a citizen to demand that NamPower, for instance, must open its books to the public and show how negatively their operations will be affected if they do not increase their prices. They must prove their case to consumers before pushing up prices!
As it is now, many institutions can unilaterally change the service conditions and get away with 'murder' because the absence of the law is seen to only affect the media who want access to State secrets.
We need to realise that it not secrecy, but rather transparency and access to information that protect the national interest.
My call is for the Government to go beyond rhetorical commitments to access to information by taking visible and tangible steps to come up with the long-awaited access to information legislation.