Noteworthy exceptions

Noteworthy exceptions

State Consultative Council

State Consultative Council
(Administrations were arranged by date of application)

Although we did not receive a formal response from the State Consultative Council, we will present the facts that have taken place after submitting our request to the Registry of the Council. This is to highlight the importance of the role of the State Consultative Council in activating the provisions of RLAW through its decisions that may be issued in the event of a dispute between an individual or any private legal person with an administration related to RLAW

We submitted a written a request to the State Consultative Council on February 1, 2018. We then attempted to follow up with the Council several times, but we did not get a response until one of the employees explained to us that the Council does not give any information over the telephone, and one must come personally to the council to review any request. One of our team members visited the Council for a formal response but one w as denied to them. This same member visited the Council again to meet with the president of the Council personally. After explaining our project as “Gherbal Initiative” to the Council’s president, the president expressed to our team member that «the Council is not concerned with this study, and its work is confidential and has nothing to do with RLAW. So we must review those who drafted the law.”

The State Consultative Council is one of the organs of the state entrusted with preserving the rights of individuals in the face of the administration. The Council itself rejects the application of the provisions of this law, which undoubtedly include it, according to the fourth paragraph of Article 2 of RLAW, «Councils of a judicial nature» are considered administrations
We did not ask for any confidential information in order to invoke the confidentiality of the Council’s work, since the website of the Council, the information officer and the council’s transactions of public funds exceeding 5 million LBP should not be confidential

Judges in Lebanon must work to support and promote rights, not violate or hinder them. Thus, the State Consultative Council must push to protect the rights of individuals, promote transparency and fight corruption within the public administration

  • Information Officer
  • Phone
  • Website
  • E-mail
  • App
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • Twitter

Lebanese Parliament

Lebanese Parliament
(Administrations were arranged by date of application)

We submitted a written request to Parliament on February 12, 2018. The request was presented by a Parliament employee to the secretary general for his approval. After presenting it to him, he agreed to take the request

When we requested for it to be registered, however, the registry employee refused to do so, and told us to follow up with the head of the Administrative Affairs department regarding the response to our request. After several follow-ups with Parliament, the head of the Administrative Affairs department told us that no information officer had been assigned so far and that he had brought the matter to the head of the Parliament for consideration

What raises many questions is that the Parliament, one year after issuing RLAW, did not comply with an integral part of the law, which is the assignment of an information officer who facilitates the process of requesting information. Members of the legislative branch must be the first to respect the laws they issue themselves, to serve as a model for other authorities and public administrations

  • Information Officer
  • Phone
  • Website
  • E-mail
  • App
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • Twitter

Ministry of Interior and Municipalities

Ministry of Interior and Municipalities
(Administrations were arranged by date of application)

We submitted a written request to the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities on January 25, 2018. After asking to register the application in the Ministry’s Registry, the employee in charge referred us to the head of the Expatriates Department in the Ministry as he is the deputy director general. After presenting the request to the deputy director, he refused to register it without informing the director general who was traveling at the time. This prompted us to refuse to deliver the application without getting a receipt of notice

On May 3, 2018, we sent the request to the Ministry through registered mail in a closed envelope, so the official in charge refused to accept it after he opened the envelope. The intransigence of the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities in dealing with citizens in more than one domain, especially regarding RLAW, reflects the Ministry‘s disregard for the rights of citizens to access information and to monitor the work of public administrations

This jeopardizes transparency in the Ministry’s work, essential to the lives of citizens — be it in terms of security, construction, local administration, etc. Hence, it is necessary to push decision-makers within the Ministry to respect individuals’ rights and comply with RLAW, as it is key for enhancing transparency, combating corruption, and attaining trust between citizens and administrations

  • Information Officer
  • Phone
  • Website
  • E-mail
  • App
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • Twitter

Posted on September 16, 2018 in Right to Access Information project

Share the Story

About the Author

Back to Top
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram