ARTICLE 19 GLOBAL CAMPAIGN FOR FREE EXPRESSION the interests of the government, for example by ‘hiding’ any information that is potentially damaging to it. In addition, the threshold test for the sensitivity of the documents in Articles 3 and 6 are too vague to properly determine whether a document falls within the classified category. They are inadequate standards to determine what information should be classified to legitimately protect national security. A much more narrowly and precisely worded standard should be imposed. 3.3.2 Persons responsible for classifying information The Law fails to identify who is responsible for classifying information. Article 19 of the Law states that the “Prime Minister and Ministers are charged with the implementation of the provisions of this Law”, however, the Law is not clear as to whether the Ministers must promulgate regulations concerning who shall have the authority to classify information. Analysis The failure to specify who is responsible for classifying information is a serious problem in the Law. The Law appears to grant full discretion to any person who has access to official information to classify information. If this were the case, the potential for abuse would be boundless as numerous persons would have the power to classify information. In addition, the Law fails to require that those with the power to classify information possess certain qualifications. The effect of this Law is to allow numerous persons to classify information without any limits on how the decisions are to be made. Further, even if it were proposed that the Ministers identify the persons with responsibility for classification of information, this is according excessive discretion on an issue which is critical to the protection of the right to access information. We consider that only Ministers and designated senior officials should have the authority to classify information and the appointment procedure should be set out in the Law, with appropriate criteria and safeguards for accountability of this decision-making role. The protection of national security is not such that this process be shrouded in secrecy. Recommendations: • Article 10 providing for the classification of “ordinary” information should be removed. • Articles 3, 6 and 8 should be amended significantly to reduce the list to include only internationally recognised legitimate interests. The list of protected categories should be more narrowly and clearly drawn. • The definitions of classifiable protected information should be amended to include stringent harm tests that require the harm to relate directly to specific legitimate interests. • The Law should limit the power to classify information to Ministers and designated senior officials and the Law should explicitly state their process of appointment and include appropriate procedural safeguards. 3.4 Consideration of overriding public interest in disclosure The Law fails to provide for disclosure even when the public interest in disclosure outweighs the state’s need for protection. As recognised by the Johannesburg Principles, no person shall be punished for the disclosure of information if “the public interest in knowing Memorandum on Jordan’s Protection of State Secrets and Documents Provisional Law No. (50) for the Year 1971ARTICLE 19, London, 2005 – Index Number: LAW/2005/1205 - 13 -