US VISA Restrictions on Complicit Politicans and their Family Members involved in the Cuban Government's Coercive Forced Labor Export Scheme

USA Visa Restrictions on African, Cuban, and Grenadian Government Officials Involved in the Cuban Regime’s Coercive Forced Labor Export Scheme

Today, the Department of State took steps to impose visa restrictions on African, Cuban, and Grenadian government officials, and their family members, for their complicity in the Cuban regime’s medical mission scheme in which medical professionals are ‘rented’ by other countries at high prices and most of the revenue is kept by the Cuban authorities.  This scheme enriches the corrupt Cuban regime while depriving the Cuban people of essential medical care.

The United States continues to engage governments, and will take action as needed, to bring an end to such forced labor.  We urge governments to pay the doctors directly for their services, not the regime slave masters.

The United States aims to support the Cuban people in their pursuit of freedom and dignity and promote accountability for those who perpetuate their exploitation.  We call on all nations that support democracy and human rights to join us in this effort to confront the Cuban regime’s abuses and stand with the Cuban people.

Source

The Sacred Honour of Emancipation

Celebrate Emancipation

Deo Adjuvante, Non Timendum

“With God as My Helper, I Have Nothing to Fear”

Appreciating Our Emancipation

By Dr. Kevin J. Turnquest-Alcena
Nassau, NP, The Bahamas

Emancipation is a profound reflection on the brutal enslavement of Africans forcibly brought to the Americas.  We must never forget the arduous journey of our ancestors, as history remains a vigilant reminder of our resilience and collective strength.  Today, racism and fascism loom ominously, rearing their heads in ways reminiscent of past oppressions.  Many individuals harbor intentions rooted in repeating the dark chapters of history, aspiring to once again subjugate Black people.

In confronting such threats, we must steadfastly remember the significance of emancipation—where we originated, where we stand today, and where we must venture tomorrow.  We must remain acutely aware that slavery was a mere six generations past, yet its scars remain palpable in our contemporary societies.  Nations throughout Latin America are persistently entangled in structural apartheid, exemplified by classism and systemic racism.

“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin, and culture is like a tree without roots.” – Marcus Garvey

Garvey highlights the vital importance of historical and cultural education for identity and resilience.

Exposing the neo-colonial agenda rooted in racism and the geopolitical exploitation of resources, especially within our ancestral continent, Africa, is imperative.  We must decipher and dismantle the mechanisms perpetuating racism, economic exploitation, and resource extraction.

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

King emphasizes the necessity of active resistance to systemic oppression.

The pursuit of self-reliance through education and strategic partnerships with nations in Asia and Africa is vital.  Realizing autonomy requires concerted efforts and robust collaborations globally.  “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” – Nelson Mandela

Mandela’s words underline education as essential in dismantling oppression and fostering equality.

We must acknowledge that hate and racism persist, stemming largely from inherited colonial governance systems characterized by political clientelism.  Such governance stifles Caribbean development, compelling urgent reform.

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” – Frederick Douglass

Douglass argues that genuine advancement arises from persistent effort and resistance.

Democracy inherited by default necessitates deliberate reform, including significant improvements to our prison systems.  Proactivity in preserving and sharing our ancient history is vital.

“You can’t separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.” – Malcolm X

Malcolm X clarifies that peace fundamentally requires freedom as its cornerstone.

Our emancipation celebration must impart a profound sense of responsibility to younger generations, emphasizing enthusiasm, unity, and brotherhood.  Recognizing our ancestral origins in the motherland enriches our cultural appreciation and underscores our historic contributions to humanity.

“History has shown us that courage can be contagious and hope can take on a life of its own.” – Michelle Obama

Obama inspires us to harness courage and hope in confronting ongoing challenges.

We, descendants of profound innovators and creators—pioneers of mathematics, astrology, chemistry, physics, and inventors of the wheel—must reclaim our rightful place in history.

“I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change.  I am changing the things I cannot accept.” – Angela Davis

Davis encourages us to actively challenge and alter unjust realities.

History must cease the systematic reclassification erasing our truths.  Affirming the true identities of historical figures such as Jesus and Moses as Black individuals is integral to cultural authenticity.

“Never forget that justice is what love looks like in public.” – Cornel West

West underscores justice as an expression of communal love and equity.

Governmental institutions across the region must rectify historical neglect within educational curricula, ensuring accurate representations of our history and the influential Haitian Revolution.

“Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.” – Chinua Achebe

Achebe highlights the need for self-narration to accurately reflect our histories.

On this Emancipation Day, let unity prevail in meditation and celebration, never forgetting our shared humanity and inherent dignity.

“I am because we are.” – Ubuntu Philosophy

This philosophy encapsulates the interconnectedness of human existence and collective well-being.

“No one is free until everyone is free.” – Fannie Lou Hamer

Hamer’s words stress the universal nature of liberation and justice.

“Truth is powerful and it prevails.” – Sojourner Truth

Truth inspires resilience and steadfastness in our ongoing struggle for equality.

“The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression.” – W.E.B. Du Bois

Du Bois reminds us that freedom, despite its challenges, is always preferable to subjugation.

“The future belongs to those who prepare for it today.” – Malcolm X

We must proactively shape the future we desire by investing in our communities now.

August 01, 2025

Source

The Organization of American States (OAS) on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Religion or Belief

The OAS General Secretariat Declaration on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Religion or Belief

Freedom of religion or belief is closely linked to the principle of freedom and human integrity in all its dimensions, as well as to the principle of plurality and diversity, taking into account the wealth of religious and spiritual expressions that are part of our territories

The fundamental right to freedom of religion or belief is part of the origins of human rights treaties and conventions. It is related to the freedom to identify with a particular belief, as well as to change religion, and even not to have any particular religious affiliation.  Freedom of religion or belief is closely linked to the principle of freedom and human integrity in all its dimensions, as well as to the principle of plurality and diversity, taking into account the wealth of religious and spiritual expressions that are part of our territories.

For these reasons, guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief continues to be a fundamental responsibility of States.  This translates into legal frameworks and public policies that recognize the plurality of religious, belief and spiritual voices, that enable treatments and paths of democratic dialogue, that account for the richness and diversity of the world of beliefs, and with it, that prevent the privilege or predominance of particular and individual expressions over the rest.

The resolution "Strengthening protection and promotion of the right to freedom of conscience and religion or belief," in section XXV of the Resolution for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of 2022, approved during the 52nd OAS General Assembly, highlights the importance of these issues.  However, this document also brings to light a set of pressing problems in our region: the persecution and discrimination of religious and belief groups (also called “members of religious minority groups”), as well as the presence of acts of intolerance and violence in the name of religion.

For all this, it is essential to understand that religious freedom or belief as a human right is, in turn, linked to the defense of the rights of all individuals and groups, in all areas.  Discussing freedom of religion or belief not only implies creating mechanisms to recognize the existence of particular groups of believers, but also represents a right that is intrinsically related to respect and promotion of other identities, other expressions, other freedoms, other rights.

Hence, from the General Secretariat,

1. We urge member states to prioritize the development of guarantees -both legal and political- that account for the importance of religious freedom and belief as a principle of recognition, visibility and promotion of religious plurality and belief as a basis of democracy.

2. We call for States to promote spaces for meeting and inclusive dialogue that allow the plurality of religious expressions and beliefs to be known, with the aim of preventing the spread of discriminatory stereotypes and prejudiced actions against members of religious minority groups.

3. We request the creation of spaces for dialogue and exchange -among States, specialists, religious and belief communities, spiritual practitioners, civil society and other multilateral instances- for the development of specific standards for the protection of religious minority groups, for the prevention of discrimination based on religion or belief, and instrumentalization of religious discourse for the violation of other rights and freedoms.

4. We invite States, civil society organizations, faith-based organizations, and religious and spiritual groups, to build spaces for meeting and mutual recognition -both nationally and multilaterally- that allow accounting for the multiplicity and richness of interactions between the religions and spiritualities present in our societies, from their vast and unfathomable wealth of expressions, manifestations and positions.

February 27, 2023

Source 

It’s time we emancipate ourselves from mental slavery... ...None but ourselves can free our minds...

Rethinking Freedom in The Bahamas

By Nicolette Bethel

In 1833, the British Parliament passed an Act to abolish slavery in the British Empire.  As of August 1, 1834, all slaves throughout the empire were to become free to some degree — if they were under the age of six, they would become free immediately, but if they were over six, they were to be apprenticed to their former masters.  Apprenticeship was finally abolished on August 1, 1838.

It is partly for this reason that Emancipation Day is a holiday in The Bahamas.  It is a holiday throughout the former British slave colonies of the Caribbean as well — and the reason that Jamaica, for example, chose it as its Independence Day.  We don’t celebrate our holiday on August 1, although we remember the date; rather, we have chosen to make the nearest Monday the holiday.

Here, then, together with hot weather, rain, and hurricanes, the summer months bring the twin holidays that commemorate our freedom.  As a nation, we have the opportunity of remembering how far we have come, of honouring our ancestors who — slave and master alike — were dehumanized by the institution of slavery and indentureship.

So far, though, we have not made the most of this opportunity.  Oh, we celebrate all right.  We have a Junkanoo parade on Independence Day, and two Junkanoo parades on the August Holiday weekend.  We have cook-outs (what better way to party than eating?)  But that’s about as far as it goes. Indeed, considering the amount of time we spend speaking of such things, it’s possible to imagine that if a Bahamian child didn’t grow up watching American television, they might be surprised to learn that Bahamians were once ever slaves.

And yet.

As I’ve written before, slavery is not over in the Caribbean.  I’m not talking about the kind of “slavery” that people like to raise when making these kinds of statements — a “slavery” that assumes that every Black Bahamian is subordinate to and poorer than every White Bahamian, that assumes that all Whites were slave owners and all Blacks slaves, that believes that Black Bahamian slaves were captured in African jungles and transported to The Bahamas on slave ships — an image of slavery that has more to do with history as outlined in the ABC miniseries Roots than our own story, which is far more complicated and interesting.

No.  I’m talking about the kind of slavery Bob Marley recognized in his own people when he wrote and performed his “Redemption Song” — the mental slavery that continues to dominate our society.

What do I mean by mental slavery?  It manifests itself in a number of different ways.  There are the obvious — the concept that Bahamians aren’t able to do things very well, and the resultant habit of looking elsewhere for models and expertise; the preference for hiring consultants from abroad to give advice that Bahamian experts have already considered and rejected; the willingness to privilege outside plans for development over local ones; the general contempt for anything home-grown, and the overconsumption of anything from across the sea.

But as common as these tendencies are, I’m thinking of other, smaller, more insidious actions and habits that show the residue of slavery in our everyday lives.

The biggest one is the apparent reluctance of the ordinary employee ever to make a decision.  Decisions, you see, require that one take responsibility for those decisions, and if one is wrong, one gets in trouble.  The result — particularly in the civil service, but not only there — is that for too many people, there is only one way of doing something.

How many of us have found ourselves in a situation where we make a request that is unusual, that takes a salesperson out of her comfort zone, that surprises her, forces her to think?

The result: roadblock.

Another one, though, that I get to see often in my line of work, is the tendency of many people who are possessed with a good idea to seek first and foremost the kingdom of Government Money.  Despite the fact that we live in a society which welcomes millions of tourists every year, in which money flows like water, in which Bahamians as well as visitors are willing to spend good cash on things they enjoy, we seem to believe that our enterprise must first and foremost be supported by handouts from the public treasury.

A third is the paralysis that I also witness, as a manager of a department and as a teacher of students, among people who seem to be waiting for someone to tell them What To Do.  They can’t — or won’t — act unless they get an order or a clearance from above.

All of these are examples of the mental slavery from which we continue to need emancipation.

Emancipation, you see, only begins with the awarding of political freedom.  It is true that on August 1, 1834, slaves were given the gift of themselves; they were able, for the first time since their enslavement, to own their bodies, their loved ones, their offspring, and their possessions.

But the residue of slavery lingers still.  The political and physical emancipation of the slaves didn’t mean that there was a corresponding psychic and mental freedom that came with it.  That has to be worked on.

So it’s that time of the year again; it’s our freedom time.  Massa’s long gone.  It’s time for us to realize that every West Indian who refuses to make a decision, every Bahamian who seeks a handout, every West Indian who looks outside our region for validation, every Bahamian who believes that what we do isn’t good enough, is in need of emancipation still.

It’s time we emancipate ourselves from mental slavery.  None but ourselves can free our minds.

thenewblackmagazine.com

To glorify the Grenada Revolution is a continuation of abuse

By Hudson George

March 13, 1979, was a day in Grenadian history we must never forget, and whatever happened before and after that day must be discussed if we want to move forward and accept democracy and individual freedom.

However, it is unfair and very disrespectful for persons of influence due to their professional status within society to tell us that we must focus only about the good things of the revolution. Persons who are trying to give us such an advice do not seem to understand and respect human beings feelings.

They fail to realise that the March 13, 1979, revolution was successful because oppressed Grenadians were able to unite together because they shared the same human feelings on that day. The oppressed Grenadians came out without fear and overthrew the Gairy regime.

The evil deeds of Gairy’s regime were what the leaders of the revolution preached against and used as evidence against Gairy, to gain support from the Grenadian masses throughout the period of the revolution. The good things that Gairy did were not mentioned by the them, therefore it is very selfish and disrespectful for any Grenadian whosever they are, to be that boldfaced to tell us that we must focus on the positive side of the revolution and try to suppress our memories of the negative events.

The Grenadian revolution did not belong to one group of people. It was supposed to be a people’s revolution, and if some people feel that the revolution did injustice to them, they should have a right to give their side of the story.

Personally, as a Grenadian I can say that the revolution was like the old English Language nursery rhyme, Solomon Grundy, who was born on a Sunday and buried on a Saturday. The leaders of the revolution were intellectuals who wanted to lead the people, but refused to listen to the voice of the people.

I can say that there were some revolutionaries who were right to show their disapproval of what was going on within the revolution, but their approach was wrong, because they went about the whole process the wrong way, trying to remedy the situation through violence.

I can say that the leaders of the revolution were happy and ready to use brute force against disgruntled revolutionaries who picked up arms to fight against them, because the leaders of the revolution were always scared of former supporters who did not say too much and just went about their daily life of survival.

Additionally, I can say that the revolution did not allow influential persons with a strong rural base to represent the rural communities in the interest of rural people. However, I know that my critics will say that I am talking rubbish and they will make excuses and say that Bernard Coard and Unison Whiteman were born in rural parts of Grenada.

But the fact is that Bernard Coard and Unison Whiteman became urbanised at an early age, because they did not live most of their lives in the rural parts of the country where they were born. They spent most of their years in St George’s and in foreign countries where they went to school and work for some time as professionals.

Those among us who want to glorify the revolution must also glorify Eric Gairy and his GULP party regime too, if they want to avoid talking about our brutal political past. Both regimes had similar political culture of doing good and bad things that left a major impact on the Grenadian society.

Grenada is supposed to be a Westminster democracy, but unfortunately, up to this present time in our history, we are still struggling to enjoy media freedom. Some of our journalists continue to play politics with the social media privilege that they have in their domain. Those of us who have an opinion that is not politically in line with what those mini media lords want to hear are despised and sometimes they go as far as warning us not to make any comments on their internet websites.

Sometimes we try to blame Eric Gairy as the genesis of political oppression in Grenada, but based on my personal experience within Grenadian political culture, it seems as though the majority of Grenadians do not like opposition. Whenever they have the privilege to control important institutions, they become oppressors, and when they fall to disgrace, those who take their place continue the legacy of oppression.

Therefore, in order for us to create a healthy functioning democracy we must end that cycle of ignorance so that the next generation can take Grenada to the next level. As long as we keep trying to avoid addressing the evils of our political past, we are creating a climate to repeat the same old violent political culture again.

Young people must be encouraged to ask questions about the revolution and they must enjoy the freedom to listen the stories of what took place, and those who were involved in the process must give the correct answers. Our young people should have the right to get the right answers from the various groups that were involved in the revolution.

However, I personally do not believe that any one of the groups involved in the fight and strife during the revolution period want to tell the Grenadian people the true story. And as long as they continue to keep their mouths shut, they should avoid trying to be so boldfaced and telling us to glorify the revolution.

I believe that the truth must reveal, if we want to discuss that very important period in our history. Therefore, to glorify the Grenada revolution is a continuation of abuse.

March 22, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

The debate on the Freedom of Information Act in The Bahamas: ..."This freedom of information law has the potential to dispel fears about secret deals, cronyism, personal favours, preferential contracts, and other perversions of the public interest for private gain." ...according to Environment Minister Earl Deveaux in his contribution in the Bahamian House of Assembly

Warning over 'propaganda'


By CELESTE NIXON
Tribune Staff Reporter
cnixon@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas

OPENING the debate on the Freedom of Information Act, Environment Minister Earl Deveaux said while the bill increases the democratic process, he cautioned against the common practice of using the media, in particular social media, to spread propaganda.

During his contribution in the House of Assembly yesterday, Mr Deveaux singled out websites such as Bahamasuncensored and Bahamas Press, claiming that those and other similar sites lack journalistic decency.

He said: "The outright attempts at character and political assassination, which have come to be commonplace in our political discourse, are a danger to our way of life."

Mr Deveaux said his own personal experience illustrates the importance of nurturing a "culture of decency in journalism."

"I can cite many examples, but the efforts by some aspiring candidates seeking fame and their friends broadcast and social media who seek to destroy my character, hard earned reputation, and that of my wife stand out in my mind as individuals who will not use self imposed standards of ethics, decency or truth to deter them from gaining their political end or serving their paymasters.

"They will live to regret their behaviour," he said.

Mr Deveaux said the act seeks to reinforce and give further effect to the fundamental principles underlying the system of a Constitutional Democracy, including increasing governmental accountability, transparency and public participation in national decisions.

This is accomplished, he said by granting the public access to records held by public authorities, subject to various exemptions. Exemptions will be used to ensure public accountability while maintaining essential confidentiality in necessary or sensitive matters involving the government.

Mr Deveaux added that the act provides an opportunity for the general public to gain insight into how the government functions and how money is spent.

"This freedom of information law has the potential to dispel fears about secret deals, cronyism, personal favours, preferential contracts, and other perversions of the public interest for private gain," he said.

While urging journalists and civic leaders to use the Freedom of Information Act properly, Mr Deveaux said he also encourages civil servants and ministers to be open with the public, as they have a right to know what is being done on their behalf by their representatives.

March 20, 2012

tribune242

The secrecy of the Commonwealth Secretariat: Time for reform

By Andrew Smith, (Intern, Human Rights Advocacy Programme, CHRI):


After more than 60 years in existence, the Commonwealth Secretariat (the Secretariat) continues to operate in an environment of secrecy, largely insulated from public scrutiny and the full involvement of civil society organisations.

Over a decade has passed since the right of access to information was recognised as ‘legal’ and ‘enforceable’ at the 1999 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). Its importance has since been reiterated at the 2007 CHOGM and Commonwealth bodies have described it as “fundamental” and “a cornerstone of democracy and good governance.” A model law has also been drafted to assist domestic legislators.

However, the Secretariat’s own information disclosure practices fall far short of international standards. Comparable organisations such as the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the European Union and the Council of Europe have all adopted comprehensive access to information policies with many progressive provisions. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is currently reforming its disclosure policy.

The comparison highlights that the Secretariat’s disclosure practices do not adhere to international best practice standards, that they do not adequately serve its goals of democracy, freedom and sustainable development and that the need for reform is urgent.

Most interstate policies adopt strong object clauses, affirming their commitment to access to information as a fundamental human right. Further to this, their common aim is to maximise the ‘effectiveness’, ‘quality’ and ‘legitimacy’ of their organisation’s output through increased transparency, civic engagement and accountability.

The World Bank states that its commitment to openness is “driven by a desire to foster public ownership, partnership, and participation in operations and is central to achieving the Bank’s mission to alleviate poverty and to improve the design and implementation of their projects and policies.”

The European Union reflects this sentiment, emphasising the importance of openness in its democratic system. As publicly funded organisations, they recognise the democratic right of their stakeholders to hold them to account.

The UNDP identifies its stakeholders as the parliaments, tax payers and public of their donor and programme countries.

The World Bank and IMF both report increased demand for accountability following the financial crisis, the former promising to hold itself to the same human rights standards it expects of its member states.

The Secretariat is a publicly funded body mandated to act in the ‘common interest of the people’. As such it must adopt an access to informational policy which facilitates civic engagement and accountability. This will increase the legitimacy of the Secretariat as a democratic organisation and improve the effectiveness of its policy outcomes.

The rhetoric of the object clauses are mostly supported by substantive policy provisions. Whilst not entirely compliant with international standards, they are substantially more progressive than the Secretariat’s practices.

The Secretariat currently operates a ‘positive list’ approach to disclosure, voluntarily publishing a limited range of documents on its website on a routine basis. Documents include ministerial communiqués, commonwealth declarations, newsletters, speeches, statements, reports and strategic documents.

This discretionary ‘positive list’ policy presumes the confidentiality of undisclosed documents without considering the nature of the information’s content or the interests at stake. All of the aforementioned interstate organisations have abandoned ‘positive lists’ in favour of the principle of ‘maximum disclosure’.

The World Bank regards this as the ‘paradigm shift’ in its policy whilst the Council of Europe explains that now “transparency is the rule and confidentiality the exception.”

The principle of maximum disclosure is formulated to maximise the availability of information, guaranteeing access to information as a fundamental human right. The principle has two features.

Firstly it presumes that all information is eligible for disclosure on request, unless specified under the exemption schedules.

Secondly, there must be an obligation to routinely publish a specified list of documents. Applying this obligation to as broad a range of documents as possible at various developmental stages facilitates civil society involvement whilst reducing the costs associated with information requests. All of the aforementioned policies comply with both features of the maximum disclosure principle.

The Secretariat must broaden its practice of routine disclosure, establish it as a duty and reverse the presumption of confidentiality for unpublished documents. This would represent a substantial departure from current practice and a positive step towards compliance with international standards.

The presumption of disclosure is not absolute and is constrained by the principle of limited exemptions. Confidentiality may be upheld in narrowly defined circumstances for the protection of legitimate interests from specified harms. This requires a case by case assessment and does not permit blanket exclusions based on official classifications or document type.

The Council of Europe schedule is weakest, excluding all classified information from disclosure. The World Bank refuses to disclose information falling within its schedule as it “could” cause harm, presuming confidentiality and failing to engage in an individual assessment of relevant interests. Some exemptions are overly broad, including those relating to ‘corporate administrative matters’ and ‘deliberative information’.

Similarly, the UNDP excludes ‘draft documents’ entirely, limiting the scope for civil society engagement.

The European Union has two exemption schedules. The first complies with international standards, citing legitimate interests. It is also the only schedule with a ‘severability clause’, allowing for the partial publication of documents. A second schedule entirely excludes ‘sensitive documents’ from disclosure due to their confidentiality statuses.

It is critical that exemptions are subject to a ‘public interest override’. If the public interest in disclosure is greater than the likely harm, then there must be an obligation to disclose. The UNDP and Council of Europe policies both lack public interest overrides. The World Bank only provides a discretionary override which can also be reversed to withhold information otherwise routinely disclosed.

The European Union only provides a public interest override for two categories of ‘interests’ under its first schedule and none under the second. The Secretariat must note that these policies fail to provide adequate safeguards against the abuse of the limited exemptions principle.

Documents ‘excluded’ from disclosure must only retain their confidentiality for as long as the public interest demands. Retention schedules must also be available to respondents whose applications are refused. Documents that are scheduled for destruction are presumed to be of no use to the originator, and therefore disclosure cannot be deemed harmful to the public interest.

It is the Secretariat’s blanket policy to retain the confidentiality of all undisclosed documents for thirty years. They are then only made publicly available subject to the Secretariat’s discretion and the consent of concerned third parties. None of the interstate organisations analysed have a default thirty year declassification period.

The European Union and the Council of Europe both set thirty years as the maximum period for refusing disclosure. Within this limit, the European Union provides that excepted material may only remain confidential for the period which it remains harmful.

The Council of Europe and World Bank adopt tiers of confidentiality with limitation periods dependant on document type. The former has periods of one, ten and thirty years and the latter has periods of five, ten and twenty years.

The UNDP does not specify its declassification periods. When initiating reforms the Secretariat must strive to disclose confidential information as promptly as the public interest test allows.

International standards require that refusals to disclose documents are accompanied with reasons and the availability of two tiers of appeal. The independence of the second tier must be guaranteed. The Secretariat has no procedure for requesting documents and therefore no appeals mechanism.

The European Union provides the opportunity for a ‘confirmatory request’ to the original decision maker followed by an appeal to an Independent Ombudsman or the Court of First Instance. This does not apply to ‘sensitive documents’.

The World Bank and UNDP provide for a first review by an internal panel and a secondary review by an independent panel. The World Bank only permits appeals where a prima facie case is made of a policy violation or where there is a public interest case to be made for disclosure. Appeals on the latter ground may not be heard by the secondary panel, meaning the public interest is never determined independently.

The Council of Europe does not have an appeals mechanism. The Secretariat must incorporate a two tier appeals mechanism with a guarantee of independence into its information disclosure policy.

Information request procedures must be accessible and user-friendly, communicating decisions or the requested documents promptly and at a reasonable price. The aforementioned policies all adopt provisions to this effect.

The Secretariat only permits access to unpublished public documents by appointment at the library of its London headquarters, refusing to provide copies. This is extremely restrictive for the majority of commonwealth citizens. Increased accessibility must become a reform priority.

The Secretariat has the opportunity to advance to the forefront of international transparency and democratic standards by adopting a progressive access to information policy. It must undertake reforms immediately in the spirit of transparency with the maximum involvement of Commonwealth stakeholders.

This consultation, along with an assessment of existing access to information policies and model laws, will greatly assist the Secretariat in remedying the deficiencies of its current practices and enable the Commonwealth to better pursue its goals of freedom, democracy and sustainable development.

March 30, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International