Speakers at a roundtable discussion on the draft Protected Public Interest Disclosure Bill on Wednesday lauded its essence and called for an intensive civic education nation-wide to attract keen public participation in the law.
The forum also suggested the inclusion of the media among institutions to whom disclosure could be made under the proposed legislation, which is also referred to as the 'Whistle Blower' bill.
Institutions mandated by the draft bill to receive disclosures are police officers at a police station, the Attorney-General, the Auditor-General, an MP, Serious Fraud Office, Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice and a Chief or head of family of the person making the disclosure.
The roundtable, the final in the series of discussions, was organised by the Institute of Economic Affairs to elicit participants' views towards the preparation of a final document for the consideration of Parliament. The Bill could be introduced in Parliament by a private individual or by the Executive through the Attorney-General.
Mr B.J da Rocha, Senior Fellow of the IEA and Mrs Sabina Ofori-Boateng, Chief State Attorney and Draftsman set the tone for the discussions with an overview of the proposed legislation and the process for its enactment.
Participants included members of the Council of State, all three branches of government, Media, the Bar, statutory bodies, senior public and civil servants, senior military and police officers, and representatives of civil society.
The Bill, initiated as part of efforts to stamp out corruption and other unlawful conduct in the society, provides for the manner in which individuals may disclose information relating to acts of impropriety in both private and public sectors without victimisation.
By the provisions of the bill, an employee can disclose specific wrongdoing of the employer and any victimisation that is suffered as a result would be actionable. It also provides for reasonable payment to the person making the disclosure in respect of expenses that might have been incurred in the course of the disclosure.
Mr da Rocha explained that the scope of mandated bodies was widened to include chiefs and family heads so as to remove possible inhibitions on the part of persons making the disclosure. "Many persons, especially, in the rural areas are afraid to go to police or any public official if the person against whom disclosure is made happens to be a big man or woman."
Some participants, however, expressed fears that the protective culture of the Ghanaian society might hinder the effectiveness of action by chiefs and family heads as proposed.
Others also expressed fears about possible delays by the mandated bodies in taking action on disclosures lodged with them and called for specific provisions under the law to compel speedy action on such cases.
Fears were also raised on the type of protection that can be offered people disclosing certain matters deemed highly sensitive and which could put life in danger. After a lengthy debate on what some contributors perceived as a potential conflict between information under protected disclosure and the Official Secretes Acts, the draftsman explained that the proposed law did not affect information deemed to be an official or state secret.
The view was also expressed that provisions be made in the law to protect personnel of security institutions who would skip their internal chain-of-command process and make disclosures to the mandated bodies from punishment under the regulations of the particular institution.
Most participants, however, disagreed with part of the draft law that seeks to compel whistle blowers to provide their name and other forms of identity before they make any disclosure. They said such a requirement might scare away people who would want to remain anonymous after reporting wrongdoing.
