The Right to Access Information Commission (RAIC) has raised serious alarm over the Data Protection and Right to Access Information (DPRAI) Bill laid in Parliament last week by the Minister of Information, Chernor Bah, warning that the Bill presented to MPs is not the Bill agreed during national stakeholders’ consultations.
The Commission says several critical provisions agreed at consultations – including at the final validation at the Miatta Conference Centre – were removed, altered or replaced with clauses that weaken the independence, enforcement powers and reach of the new law.
“What was laid in Parliament completely contradicts the promise that government would expand RAIC’s mandate, not dismantle it,” a senior RAIC official said.
# 1. Who Does The Law Apply To? – Private Bodies Cut Out
The first major issue is Application Section 2.
In the draft agreed after consultations, and in the existing RAI Act 2013, the law applies to:
a) For right to access information, to a public authority and a private body that is holding or is in control of information necessary for the enforcement or protection of a right;
b) For protection of personal data, to a person, institution or public body that collects, processes, holds or uses personal data relating to a Sierra Leonean citizen or non-citizen residing within Sierra Leone or outside Sierra Leone but with some commercial, legal or taxable presence in Sierra Leone.
Both subsections were omitted from the Bill laid in Parliament.
RAIC is calling for their immediate reinstatement, saying it is international best practice.
“Almost all data protection laws in the world – including in countries where one authority has dual ATI and DP mandate such as South Africa, Albania, Morocco, UK, Germany – apply not only to public authorities but also to private bodies,” RAIC said. “Anything short of this would render the law very weak.”
The Commission warned that removing private bodies from the ATI section will seriously affect Sierra Leone’s global ranking in freedom of information and data protection. Sierra Leone was ranked No. 5 in 2019 and No. 11 in 2025 as the country with the most robust ATI law in the world.
There is also no definition for *Chairman and Commissioner / Board Member in the interpretation section.
# 2. Independence under Threat – Dangerous ‘Exception’ Added
The independence of the oversight body is sacrosanct and non-negotiable, RAIC says.
During consultations, stakeholders agreed to retain Section 37 of the RAI Act 2013 which says:
“The Commission and its authorized agents shall not in the performance of their functions under this Act be subject to the decisions or control of any person or authority.”
But the Bill laid in Parliament has a new Independence Clause 22 that reads:
“The Authority and its authorized agents shall not in the performance of their functions under this Act be subject to the decisions or control of any person or authority, except as provided by this Act or any other law.”
RAIC says that added caveat “except as provided by this Act or any other law” has the potential to completely weaken independence.
“No data protection and access to information law in the world has an independence clause with this ‘exception’ caveat. We call for its removal,” the Commission said.
The Commission warned that a strong independence clause is a requirement to be accredited as a member of the International Conference of Information Commissioners and the African Network of Information Commissions. Sierra Leone earned that accreditation in 2019 because of Section 37, and now sits on the Executive Boards of both bodies.
A weak clause risks losing that accreditation and ranking, and will undermine enforcement of the law.
#3. Composition – Ceremonial Board Instead Of Executive Commission
Another contentious issue is the Composition of the Oversight Body.
Minister Bah had announced that RAIC had done a fantastic job and government intended to expand its mandate to include data protection to strengthen it and cut cost, instead of setting up a new agency. He promised no disruption to RAIC.
But RAIC says the Bill laid in Parliament contradicts that promise.
What was agreed in consultations?
An Executive Chairman, who is CEO and Head of the Commission, chairs Board meetings and provides overall leadership, supported by a Secretary who supervises staff. The Executive Chairman is assisted by Regional Commissioners who are also Board members. Add two more Commissioners one for Data Protection, one for Access to Information – bringing total to 7 Commissioners. Government would only pay for 2 new Commissioners since the rest are already on payroll.
What is in the Bill laid in Parliament?
A ceremonial Board Chairman instead of an Executive Chairman, plus a Director-General as CEO, plus two Deputy Directors-General one for DP, one for ATI – appointed by the President on recommendation of the Board.
But there is no provision for how the DG is appointed and by whom. The relationship between the DG and his two deputies is not clearly defined. It is not clear if one Deputy will act as Secretary in the DG’s absence. The DG is supposed to supervise his deputies, but the Bill reads as if all three report directly to the Board Chairman – a recipe for chaos.
RAIC also raised concern that Section 12 provides for remunerations, fees and allowances for the Board Chairman and 8 other members approved by the Minister, but with no provision on where funds will come from. If the Minister approves their pay, he can control their decisions – another dangerous ‘exception’ to independence.
RAIC’s Counter-Proposal:
Keep a functional board. Change the title to Chairman and Commissioner-General, appoint two Deputy Chairpersons and Commissioners-General for DP and ATI, retain Regional Commissioners supported by Regional Coordinators. They will constitute the executive functional board, with the Executive Secretary as Secretary to the Board.
This mirrors best practice in South Africa, Albania, Germany, UK, Canada, Morocco, and in Sierra Leone at EPA, ACC, ECSL and the Human Rights Commission.
The Commission can still have an advisory council like the ACC, with stakeholders from government and civil society.
# 4. Enforcement – Minister Given Power To Decide Fines
On Enforcement, RAIC says the Bill laid in Parliament has no clearly defined fines.
In the consultation draft, fines were clear: Le20,000 for individuals and Le100,000 for institutions in breach of ATI, and Le20,000 for individuals and Le200,000 for institutions in breach of Data Protection.
In the Parliament Bill, the Minister now has power to determine the fine on a case-by-case basis.
For example, Section 81(2) reads: “A person who contravenes subsection (1), commits an offence and is liable on conviction, to such penalty as the Minister may, in consultation with the authority, prescribe.”
Similar provisions appear in Sections 82(1) and (2), 84 and 85.
“The maximum penalty must be stated in the Bill and it should be up to the Commission to decide the range, not the Minister. This undermines independent decision-making,” RAIC said.
The Commission says the Minister’s role should be limited to policy, not deciding penalties case-by-case.
# 5. RAIC’s Amendments Ignored, Name Change Ignored
RAIC says none of its proposed amendments to the RAI Act 2013 submitted to the Ministry were taken on board, despite assurances from Minister Bah that they would be considered.
At the final consultation, stakeholders also agreed to change the name from Data Protection and Right to Access Information Commission (DPRAI) to Right to Access Information and Data Protection Commission/Authority (RAIDPC/RAIDPA) because it is Data Protection joining RAI, not the other way round.
That change was also omitted.
# 6. Key Protections Missing – PIOs, Whistleblowers, Enforcement
Several critical sections in the RAI Act 2013 were omitted from the DPRAI Bill:
Section 28- Provision for all public authorities to recruit Public Information Officers to process information requests
Sections 50 and 51 – Protection of Whistleblowers
– Sections 43, 44, 45, 46 and 48 – Enforcement of the RAI law
RAIC is calling for their reintegration.
# 7. Regional Consultations Flawed
RAIC also complained about limited engagement. Apart from Makeni in the North-East where its Regional Commissioner and PIO attended, staff in Bo (South) and Kenema (East) were not invited. In fact, no consultation was held in Kenema, and it is unclear if one was held in Bo.
RAIC is calling on Parliament, the Ministry of Information and Civic Education, and the Law Officers Department to:
1. Restore the full Application Clause to cover private bodies
2. Remove the ‘exception’ caveat from the Independence Clause
3. Restore a functional Executive Board, not a ceremonial Board
4. Restore fixed fines in the law, not ministerial discretion
5. Reintegrate PIOs, Whistleblower Protection and Enforcement sections
6. Change the name to RAIDPC / RAIDPA
7. Consider RAIC’s proposed amendments to the RAI Act 2013
“Since the intention of expanding RAIC’s mandate to cover data protection is to strengthen its enforcement regime, it is better to fix these grey areas before passage, not after,” the Commission warned.