RAIC Imposes NLe 80,000 Fine on Corporate Affairs Commission Over FOI Request Delay

The Right to Access Information Commission (RAIC) has imposed a fine of Eighty Thousand New Leones (NLe 80,000) on the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) for failing to respond to an information request within the legally mandated timeframe.

This action comes after the Commission found the CAC in violation of the Right to Access Information Act of 2013 and the accompanying Right to Access Information Regulations of 2022.

The fine was levied after a Freedom of Information (FOI) request was made by Eleanor Thompson on June 18, 2024.

Thompson sought certified copies of reports, resolutions, notices, audited financial statements, and other documents related to the Sierra Leone Bar Association (SLBA) filed with the Corporate Affairs Commission between March 19, 2023, and May 28, 2024. Additionally, she requested evidence of the SLBA’s Annual General Meeting (AGM), which the CAC had claimed to possess.

Under the Right to Access Information Act 2013, public authorities are required to respond to such requests within 15 working days.

However, the CAC failed to meet this deadline, prompting Thompson to submit an application for review to the RAIC on July 10, 2024. The application was supported by a delivery receipt, confirming the CAC had received the original request.

Following this, the RAIC sent a letter to the Corporate Affairs Commission on July 17, 2024, granting them seven days to address the review application.

The CAC again failed to respond, leading the RAIC to conclude that the Commission had not fulfilled its legal obligations under the Right to Access Information Act.

In its ruling, the RAIC determined that the Corporate Affairs Commission had violated Section 4 of the Act by not providing the requested documents within the statutory period.

As a result, the fine was imposed, and the CAC was ordered to release the information to Eleanor Thompson.

The RAIC has informed the CAC of its right to appeal the decision under Section 46 of the Right to Access Information Act 2013.

The case underscores the importance of compliance with transparency laws and the consequences of failing to uphold citizens’ right to access public information.