The Icelandic Maritime Safety Administration (MAST) said it did not provide inspection reports to Watson, asserting the documents were released under law [1].
This dispute highlights the tension between government transparency and the specific targeting of individuals or entities during the release of public records. The case centers on whether the agency actively facilitated a specific party's access to information or simply followed statutory mandates.
MAST officials said that the agency operates under the guidelines of Iceland's Information Act. According to the agency, the law prevents the government from withholding specific types of documentation when requested by the public [1].
"Inspection reports are public documents, and anyone may request access to them under Iceland's Information Act," a MAST spokesperson said [1].
The agency further clarified that its actions were a matter of legal obligation rather than a discretionary choice to assist a particular individual. The spokesperson said, "That means we are not permitted to withhold them" [1].
Reports indicate that the documents in question were released following formal requests. A reporter for the Iceland Monitor noted that requests for these documents were made, and the agency released them on that legal basis [1].
The agency maintains that it did not engage in a targeted provision of reports to Watson, but instead adhered to the transparency requirements that govern all public records in Iceland [1].
“"Inspection reports are public documents, and anyone may request access to them under Iceland's Information Act."”
The position taken by MAST reinforces the primacy of the Information Act over claims of selective disclosure. By framing the release as a legal requirement rather than a voluntary action, the agency is attempting to shield itself from accusations of bias or improper collaboration with Watson, emphasizing that public accessibility is a mandatory standard for all citizens.
