The essence of the freedom of information legislation is that it applies vertically, the citizen's rights to demand from the state and not viz a vie other citizens, the citizen can exercise their rights or not,,,its up to them,the law does not confer any responsibility on them. The issue of a mother denying her child access to polio vaccine is an issue of children's rights. On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Harry Delano <harry@comtelsys.co.ke> wrote:
**
Many thanks Kurubo/Grace,
I suppose then, in light of the foregoing, State must at all costs avail "information" under it's possession.
Citing the "Freedom of information" clause within this context however, makes it imperative for State to do so within universally adopted benchmarks. But within the same context, what is the citizen's responsibility?
I could check this out. But does the clause in the same vein confer a mandatory responsibility upon the citizen to ensure their exercise of this "Right to access" does not go to waste, or does he/she have the freedom to exercise this right/liberty liberally.
One can argue that for instance, a mother who fails to vaccinate her child against polio, because of "*failure"* to access information as opposed to "*lack"* of access to information should be held responsible. Is this enforceable in law..? How?
Lastly but not least, State has only a tiny custody of information consumable by the public. I dare say that a lot of information/knowledge sought after by information consumers fall well outside the State domain.
How do we police those outside, who hoard information desperately needed by consumers...? And what of those who deliberately avail misleading information/knowledge, including state..?
Harry
------------------------------ *From:* Kerubo Ombati [mailto:kaykerubo@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:35 PM *To:* harry@comtelsys.co.ke *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Freedom of Information laws/ e- discussion continued
Hi Listers,
Harry, the 'Freedom of Information' clause in the constitution is designed to give citizens free access to public information held by the state,it generally does not impose a positive obligation on the state to impart such information on the individual.
However,in certain instances, failure to provide the information to an individual can be considered to constitute an interference with their private rights and a breach of the state's human rights obligations.
Although, freedom of information legislation is reluctant to impose a positive obligation on the state,the considered view as adopted is that the freedom of information legislation should impose a duty on the state to impart information to the public.
Regards, Kerubo
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Harry Delano <harry@comtelsys.co.ke>wrote:
** Hey Grace & Kerubo,
Thanks for your summary overview. I wonder aloud whether it should only be the state that maintains this monopoly over accessibility to basic information in as far as "*Freedom *of information" is concerned.
Whereas state has the instruments it can use to either promote or curtail such freedoms, I suppose it would also be safe to say that in quite a number of instances, state might be deemed a "lame duck".
How about a remote Island sequestered somewhere, about 200 miles off the shores of Lake Victoria with no basic access to communication?
Would the populace there's lack thereof, of basic information access be considered an infringement on this fundamental right/liberty by the state...?
Harry
------------------------------ *From:* kictanet-bounces+harry=comtelsys.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke[mailto: kictanet-bounces+harry=comtelsys.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Grace Githaiga *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:57 AM *To:* harry@comtelsys.co.ke *Cc:* kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke *Subject:* [kictanet] Freedom of Information laws/ e- discussion continued
Thanks Harry Delano, Washington, Cleophas and Kerubo.
Harry you raise a good question on what these terms mean and whether they are interchangeable.
Washington, you make an important point about freedom of expression/speech not being absolute, and Cleophas affirms your point.
Thanks Kerubo for the definitions. Yes, freedom of information simply means the freedom to get certain basic information held by the state, which can enable one to for example bring a case of human rights violation or any other cause.
Freedom of expression can mean many things, say freedom to air your ideas, take a stand, artistic creativity--simply freedom to express how you feel. And of course as Washington and Cleophas rightly point out, all these freedoms are subject to limitations and therefore not carte blanche.
In this case then:
- Is there conflict between laws on freedom of information and what citizens demand/require?
Lets hear it from you.
Rgds Grace
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kaykerubo%40gmail.com
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.