“`html
Scottish Government Faces legal Action Over Delayed Release of Nicola Sturgeon Ethics Inquiry Documents
Table of Contents
The Scottish government is facing unprecedented legal action from Scotland’s Information Commissioner after repeatedly missing deadlines to release documents related to an ethics investigation involving former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. The legal challenge,initiated on Thursday,could see the government held in contempt of court,escalating a dispute over openness and access to information.
The controversy centers around correspondence pertaining to the inquiry that cleared Sturgeon of breaching the ministerial code regarding her handling of complaints against her predecessor, Alex Salmond. While ministers assured lawmakers that the documents would be released “not much longer,” the Information Commissioner deemed the delays unacceptable and has begun formal proceedings.
Mounting Frustration with Government Transparency
the Scottish Information Commissioner, David Hamilton, took the unusual step of instructing solicitors after the government failed to meet a Thursday deadline. According to a spokesperson for the Commissioner’s office, this marks the first time such action has been taken against a Scottish government entity for non-compliance with freedom of information requests.
“Full and timely compliance with requests is a vital part of the freedom of information system,” Hamilton stated, emphasizing the importance of accountability. The Commissioner’s office is currently managing six appeals related to the Sturgeon and Salmond inquiries, with nearly 90 requests received in total.
Concerns Over ‘Jigsaw Identification’ and Court Orders
The Scottish government maintains that releasing the documents is complicated by the need to protect the anonymity of individuals who made complaints in the Salmond case. Ministers argue that publishing certain evidence considered by independent advisor James Hamilton during his investigation could potentially identify these individuals, violating existing court orders.
During a session of First Minister’s Questions (fmqs) on Thursday,First minister John Swinney explained that redaction efforts are underway,but are proving time-consuming. He acknowledged the delays but insisted the government is committed to complying with the Commissioner’s decision “as soon as possible.”
Legal Battles and Political Fallout
The government is currently appealing two key cases in the Court of Session, including an order to release evidence submitted to Hamilton. This evidence, Swinney contends, could lead to the “jigsaw identification” of complainers, a breach of court orders established following Salmond’s acquittal on sexual assault charges in 2020.
The situation has drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties.Murdo Fraser, a Scottish Conservative MSP, accused the SNP of an “addiction to secrecy and cover-up,” suggesting the government prioritizes its reputation over transparency. Jackie Baillie, Labor’s deputy leader in Scotland, labeled the SNP’s actions as “arrogant” and claimed the government believes it is “above the law.”
A History of Redaction and limited Disclosure
The roots of this dispute stretch back almost five years, to when Sturgeon was initially cleared of breaching the ministerial code. Even then, james Hamilton expressed frustration that his report had to be heavily redacted to protect the identities of those who complained about Salmond’s conduct. He noted that the redactions resulted in “an incomplete and even at times misleading version of what happened.”
The current impasse highlights the tension between the public’s right to access information and the legal obligation to protect the privacy of individuals involved in sensitive cases.Ironically, the government now faces potential contempt of court charges over a request it has agreed to fulfill, but is struggling to meet due to the complexities of redaction.
It remains to be seen whether the requested documents will be handed over before the court convenes to consider the case, and whether that will influence the court’s judgment. The outcome of this legal battle will likely have significant implications for government transparency and freedom of information practices in Scotland.
