Media disclosure of expenses made from a bank account, using a Platinum Card, has shaken the very top job at the head of State, leading to the resignation of the occupant. Had the media confined their reporting to vague comments, unsubstantiated facts, constrained as they are by the traditional doctrine and law on release of bank information, perhaps not much of what we see to-day would have happened.

Had the media kept quiet, not posting bank data they had received, systemic flaws at the level of the Presidency would have remained unknown, treated as cheap vindictive politicking manoeuvres to destabilise the powerful. Labelled as unfounded rumours, the matter would have been gently swept under the business- as-usual rug. Private interest would have prevailed, and public interest underserved.

But things went the other way. The public got to know of the expenses made and the particulars of the purchases, the items and value thereof, the locations of the vendors and shops, and other details surrounding the transactions registered. A scandal that could have gone lost somewhere in the wilderness and remained unknown was pushed into the public spotlight.

This situation begs for a rethinking of banking legislation or any legislation for that matter, which tends to become more and more stringent to afford better protection to clients and safeguard their interests, even though there may be a public interest issue therein. The point being: whether the ‘common or collective good’ dimension should not be more adequately taken on board when considering public disclosure of bank information. In other words, should not the rules allow media disclosure when there is a public interest issue at stake?

The circumstances following the publication of articles regarding expenses incurred by the ex-President of the Republic, using the Platinum Card, brought a flurry of observations from various quarters. Among them, accusations levelled against authors of articles for violation of bank secrets or rules of confidentiality. Attempts were couched in threatening terms to pressure those who were enlightening public opinion on what was going on. But, it was not only the ordinary man in the street who was learning of what was happening. Even the public authorities were making discoveries through the media!

Looking at the turn of events following the publication of the Platinum Card data, and sensing more revelations from the inquiries on-going, one need to pause a second and reflect on the fact that all this originated from a disclosure of bank information, considered confidential to start with, a banking secret, jealously protected by law. But, which interest is the law protecting, if it’s not an exclusively private one?

Is it not time to embed into the law governing the universe of bank secretive operations the concept of public responsibility when it comes to matters of public interest? Society is evolving, concepts are evolving, the public responsibility of the media, media roles are changing, they shape public opinion, they are determinants of power holding, and in turn, participate more and more to bringing the dynamic impetus our society is in need of.

Also, disclosing information no longer imply tearing a page from a ledger book and handing it over to the media, not even the photocopying machine is needed. A click of a mouse and, in a matter of seconds, one billion viewers can access it!

Access to bank records are tightly regulated and are only made available upon application to the appropriate jurisdiction and in strict compliance with prevailing court procedures. It is granted on the sole purpose of serving the interest of justice. Enlightening public opinion on a possible case of abuse of public funds or position does not constitute an iota of justification that would grant the media a rod or a net to go on a fishing expedition.

And this is where concepts of private interest, public interest and public responsibility need to get into the bank secrets equation. And the legislation needs urgent rethinking!

Kris Valaydon