The High Court has ordered the Commissioner of Information, retired Justice, Charles Ramson Snr. to process and determine several outstanding requests for information after finding that the applications had not been determined within the time required by the Access to Information Act.

The requests were made by Chartered Accountant, Christopher Ram concerning payments relating to the ExxonMobil-led consortium under the 2016 Petroleum Agreement, Revenue and expenditure and the accounting treatment of receipts relating to the ExxonMobil-led consortium under the 2016 Petroleum Agreement, and Reports and records relating to the operation of the Access to Information Act 2011 and the Office of the Commissioner of Information.

As a result, the Court held that the Commissioner was deemed to have refused access to each of the requests pursuant to section 18(3) of the Access to Information Act 2011.

“The Commissioner shall process and determine the Applicant’s revenue and expenditure request in accordance with the Access to information as interpreted by this judgement,” Justice Nicola Pierre said in her ruling.

The Court ordered the Commissioner to process and determine each of the requests in accordance with the Access to Information Act 2011, including Sections 18 to 25 where applicable, and in accordance with the interpretation of the Act set out in the judgment.

The Commissioner was given 60 days from the date of the order to make and communicate the determinations to the Applicant.

The Court further ordered that  if access to any requested document is granted, the Commissioner must provide access in accordance with the Act.

Where access is refused, or where the Commissioner determines after a thorough and diligent search that a requested document does not exist or cannot be located, the Commissioner must comply with section 23 of the Access to Information Act.

That includes providing the Applicant with written notice and the reasons required by section 23, including information concerning the Applicant’s right to apply to the High Court for judicial review.

The Court did not find that the Commissioner had made an actual substantive decision refusing access to the requested documents.

Instead, because the statutory period had expired without a determination, the Court found that the Commissioner was deemed to have refused access under section 18(3).

The Court also declined to grant a declaration sought by the Applicant that the Commissioner had failed to comply with section 23 by failing to provide reasons for a substantive refusal. The Court said there was no evidence of an actual substantive refusal decision to which Section 23 applied at the relevant time.

Related posts:

$40M approved for Office of Commissioner of Information; More than 75% to be paid as salary and benefits Christopher Ram to sue over non-provision of information on oil agreement and other information requests Civil Society members and AFC picket office of Commissioner of Information over non-provision of information Government rehires former Appeal Justice Charles Ramson as Commissioner of Information