Case Summary
Appellant: Bank of Maldives Plc
Defendant: Information Commissioner’s Office
Intervenor: Ahmed Aiman Latheef
Court: High Court of the Republic of Maldives
Case no.: 2022/HC-A/109
Justice’s bench: Uz. Hussain Mazeed, Uz. Mohamed Niyaz and Uz. Hassan Shafeeu.
Nature of dispute: Application for lack of information under the Right to Information Act (No.: 1/2014).
Case registration date: 22 March 2022
Judgement date: 05 February 2023
Case appealed: Bank of Maldives Plc v. Information Commissioners Office decided by the Information Commissioner’s Office under case no. CM-33/2020.
Facts
This is an appeal case filed in the High Court of the Republic of Maldives by Bank of Maldives Plc (“Appellant”), refusing to accept the decision of the Information Commissioner’s Office (“Defendant”) to disclose information about all the employees currently employed by the Appellant, with the details of their position, salary and benefits. This information was requested by Ahmed Aiman (“Intervenor”), who referred the issue to the Defendant after failing to acquire the information from the Appellant. The Defendant held that the Appellant was a state institute under article 67(f) of the Regulation on the Right to Information (No. 2016/R-5) (“RTI Regulation”). Therefore, the information sought out by the intervenor is information that the Appellant is required to disclose proactively according to Article 37(k) of the Right to Information Act (No. 1/2014) (“RTI Act”).
Appeal points
The appellant appealed the case on the following grounds.
- The Appellant claimed that they are not a state institute under the RTI Act, as the definition of a state institute provided for in the RTI Act does not include “state-owned enterprises (SOEs)”. This argument stems from the differing definition of “state institute” in the RTI Regulation and the RTI Act. Although the RTI Regulation includes the term “state-owned enterprises” in its definition of state institute, the Act’s definition does not. This discrepancy was a huge discussion point in the case.
- The Appellant claimed that the Defendant’s decision violates Article 30 (b) of the RTI Act because the requested information would cause irreversible damage to them if made public. According to Article 30 (b) of the RTI Act, they have the discretion not to disclose any legitimate financial or commercial interest if doing so causes them such harm.
Judgment
The High Court held that:
- The Appellant does fall under the term “state institute” of the RTI Act since Article 72 (f) of the RTI Act states that any organization that takes on any state responsibility is a state institute. The Appellant’s articles of association require them to provide loans and assistance in accordance with government directives and as an agent of the government. They must also provide credit and other services to help entrepreneurs working in areas such as fishing, agriculture, and traditional Maldivian crafts. Both of these are functions that the government needs to provide.
- As per Article 3 (c) of the Interpretation Act (No. 4/2011) and the Supreme Court case no. 2022/SC-A/39, it is not desirable to add additional elements where the use of a word, phrase, or sentence conveys a particular meaning. However, the discrepancy between the RTI Regulation and the RTI Act in defining “state institutes” was not intended to create a new element. Rather, it was to further elaborate the definition.
- Article 30 (b) of the RTI Act does not apply here, as the information sought by the Intervenor is not a trade secret, and the Appellant was unable to provide a justification as to how it violated Article 30 (b) of the RTI Act.
Editorial Team
Yafis Ahmed
Author
Suma Ilyas
Editor
