It is hard to believe that the Public Service Commission is among those involved in the drafting of the Freedom of Information law. It comes as a surprise because, in the past few weeks, the PSC’s response to queries shows it to be acting otherwise.

In recent weeks, a complaint against the Ministry of Communications, Information and Technology Lefaoalii Unutoa Auelua-Fonoti. The staff members alleged favouritism and verbal abuse amongst other accusations. The PSC has remained tightlipped on this issue and others have been questioned about.

It is contradicting its policies. The PSC emphasises transparency and accountability in its operations and public service delivery, promoting open decision-making, responsible actions, and adherence to ethical principles, as outlined in the Public Service Act 2004 and other relevant documents. It is disheartening that the PSC does practice this itself while expecting civil servants to do so.

The PSC says that it strives to be open and accessible, allowing for scrutiny of its actions and decisions. Public servants and the PSC itself are held responsible for their actions and decisions, ensuring that they can explain their reasoning and take responsibility for outcomes.

The PSC emphasises ethical behaviour, honesty, impartiality, and serving the public with integrity and the PSC aims to improve the quality and efficiency of public service delivery, with a focus on meeting the needs of the Samoan people.

The PSC promotes good governance through its actions and policies, fostering an environment of trust and accountability. The PSC is responsible for human resources management of the government and it claims to employ the best practices. However, the PSC’s recent action and failure to be held accountable to the public is contravening its policies. The PSC like all government departments are answerable to the people of this nation.

Last year, Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mataafa announced the formation of an anti-corruption agency and laws to go with it. She also announced the formation of the Freedom of Information law that will allow the public to gain answers from the government without civil servants or bureaucrats saying that the public does not need to know.

These are the types of responses from government departments that require the Free of Information Act. The Freedom of Information Act grants individuals the right to request access to government records, to ensure an informed citizenry and promote transparency.

The primary purpose of the law is to ensure that the public has access to information held by government agencies, allowing citizens to be informed and hold their government accountable. It applies to records created by any government department.

Any person can request access to government information under the law, and agencies are generally required to disclose the information unless it falls under a statutory exemption. These exemptions protect interests such as national security, personal privacy, and law enforcement, allowing for the withholding of certain types of information.

Transparency and accountability are vital pillars of good governance, promoting trust, combating corruption, and ensuring the government is responsive to citizens' needs by making government actions and decisions open and accessible while holding those in power responsible for their actions.

Transparency allows citizens to be informed about government actions, while accountability ensures that those in power are answerable for their decisions. Together, they form an essential framework that promotes trust, curtails corruption, and enables effective governance. We may have a framework, however, the question remains if this framework is being followed.

Transparency is necessary for accountability. It is a challenge for the public to access information that would help them determine whether their elected and appointed officials are ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. Citizens do not only engage with their government by voting; it is also necessary for them to know what is going on in their communities so they can ensure whoever they voted for is making good on their promises, and if they are not, to hold them accountable.