The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) mandates that government ministries must provide a valid justification for denying access to public records, as emphasized by Section 38 of the Act. Under FOIA, individuals have the right to request government-held information unless the document falls under exemptions outlined in Part IV. In cases of refusal, the ministry is required to issue a written notice under Section 21, detailing the reasons for the decision and informing the applicant of their right to appeal to the Ombudsman.
Section 38 of the FOIA, which governs the Review of Decisions process, explicitly states that the ministry or prescribed authority bears the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that their decision to withhold information was justified under exemptions such as national security, Cabinet confidentiality, or legal privilege, or that the Ombudsman should rule against the applicant. This ensures that access to information remains the default, with the ministry required to validate its refusal rather than the applicant proving the legitimacy of their request.
Failure to meet this burden can result in the Ombudsman ordering disclosure under Section 39. Recently, the Government of Belize has escalated this process by appealing to the High Court to overturn the Ombudsman’s directive to release information regarding payments to private law firms. While FOIA permits appeals to the Supreme Court under Section 43, such appeals usually follow a completed review. The Attorney General’s decision to directly challenge the Ombudsman’s directive now brings the interpretation of these procedural safeguards before the judiciary, marking a significant development in the application of FOIA.