Business Times wins important ruling against SLBFE

When the matter came on Friday, the Commission was informed that BT Editor (Feizal Samath) had been informed on March 15 by the SLBFE on its willingness to release this information. Based on that, the Commission concluded the appeal hearing. The request for details of MOUs and/or bilateral agreements with the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait pertaining to Sri Lankan migrant workers was first made on July 3, 2107, which was then refused by the SLBFE saying releasing this information would “seriously prejudice Sri Lanka’s relations with any state.” The BT appealed to the same agency, as per RTI rules, and again it was refused. The BT, as per rules, filed an appeal with the RTI Commission stating that these are matters of public importance and migrant workers need to know what is in these agreements that are supposedly ensuring their protection. At the appeal hearing on February 6, the SLBFE cited the same reasons (as earlier) for their refusal. However the Commission took the view that these are matters of considerable public interest and concerning the rights of Sri Lankan citizens who work in those countries. “As such there is no serious prejudice caused to any parties to the agreements,” the Commission said in its order. Thereafter the SLBFE was directed to release the information to the appellant as requested.

However when the matter came up on February 23, the SLBFE took the position that it can release only MOUs that the bureau has signed and not those entered into by the Ministry of Foreign Employment. All three MOUs that were requested had been signed by the Ministry, which meant that no information could be released to the appellant.

But the Commission said: “At the previous hearing the PA (public authority) was clearly informed of the fact that the information requested by the appellant related to public documents, therefore there is no third party involved. In these circumstances the Commission directs the PA to provide the requested information to the appellant within two weeks.”

On March 15, the BT Editor was informed by letter that the SLBFE is willing to release the information as requested in the appeal.

For decades, the SLBFE has refused to release this information which would have helped the public, workers, the media and migrant worker interest groups to understand what kind of protection mechanism, in consultation with labour-receiving country governments, is provided for departing workers.

- The Sunday Times