The Maldives High Court has upheld the information commissioner’s judgment that employees of the state-owned Bank of Maldives must disclose their income information.
Ahmed Aiman Latheef (Pico) had requested information on the salaries, benefits, and number of positions given to bank employees. He had requested the information on September 19, 2020. When the bank declined to release the information, Aiman filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
In this case, the Information Commissioner determined that BML should reveal the information. He requested that the bank release the information within seven days. Instead of disclosing the information, the bank filed an appeal with the High Court against the commissioner’s judgment.
The bank highlighted two significant issues before the High Court. The first was a petition stating that the corporation had been labeled a “state agency” in contravention of the RTI Act.
The corporation stated it did not satisfy the description of “state agencies”. In response to the bank’s complaint against the information commissioner, Aiman stated that because the bank was a state-run bank providing banking services, it would fall under the jurisdiction of the state agency.
In a second appeal, the bank claimed that the commissioner’s ruling violated the Right to Information Act.
The High Court emphasised in this instance that, while the statute specifies the state agency, it does not include the phrase “state-owned corporation,” but the guidelines set by the Commissioner’s Office do.
However, the legal question there is whether this inclusion has amended or changed the interpretation of the Act, and the answer to that concern is that the sections included in the Act when defining a public body fall under the description of “a place where the state performs a responsibility.”
The high court cited the basic regulations of BML, which include the management and operation of loans and grants as an agent of the government as directed by the Government of Maldives, credit and other facilities to farmers, fishermen, and those engaged in self-employment activities in rural areas, as well as the inclusion of adequate service availability under the rules.
While dismissing an appeal filed by BML on the grounds that the information requested by Aiman was exempt from the law, the high court stated that the law empowers state entities not to reveal information that may be prejudicial to legitimate commercial or financial interests.
However, the high court determined that the information of employees’ salaries and positions could not be considered as such information. The court also ruled that the bank could not specify the harm done to its business or financial interests as a result of revealing the information.
Justices Mohamed Niyaz and Hassan Shafiu agreed with Justice Hussain Majeed that there was no basis to reverse the information commissioner’s ruling.
State-owned enterprises have been pleading in courts that they should not be included in the “state agency” provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in order to avoid information disclosure. A suit filed by MTCC to withhold such information is already pending in the Maldives Supreme Court.
