Protection of critical infrastructure: Brandenburg also wants to restrict access to information

The Brandenburg state government has announced plans to amend its Act on Access to Official Documents (AIG), which currently guarantees citizens the right to inspect public records unless there are overriding public or private interests against it. According to a spokesperson for the Interior Ministry, the administration is working on a draft law aimed at strengthening the protection of critical infrastructure. The move follows similar efforts by Berlin, where officials have justified restrictions on information access by citing potential threats to national security and public safety. The proposed changes would allow the state greater flexibility in responding to perceived risks, such as cyberattacks or other forms of disruption to essential services. While the specifics of the amendments remain undisclosed, the government claims they would not go as far as federal-level reforms, due to constitutional limitations under the state constitution. This aligns with broader trends across Germany, where several other states, led by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD), have also introduced proposals to limit transparency rights. These include Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and Thuringia, all of which cite concerns over security and administrative efficiency as justification. In July, the federal government unveiled plans to significantly curtail the Freedom of Information Act (IFG). Among the measures outlined were stricter criteria for releasing information, limiting access to data held by organizations, businesses, and foundations, and requiring “justified interest” rather than a general right to information. These proposals have sparked widespread criticism, with more than half a million people signing a petition led by the Transparency Portal FragDenStaat to protect freedom of information. Over 130 organizations have also voiced their opposition, including some within the ruling party itself. SPD members reportedly expressed reluctance to support the erosion of existing transparency standards. Legal experts and civil liberties advocates have raised alarms over the implications of these developments. Philipp Schönberger and Hannah Vos from FragDenStaat argue that linking transparency restrictions to abstract security concerns serves primarily as a means to shield executive power from public scrutiny. They warn that such measures risk undermining democratic accountability. Similarly, Professor Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider, head of the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BfDI), has stated that blanket restrictions on information access create less democracy than they promise. She emphasized that true security must be balanced with openness and public oversight. In Brandenburg, legal representatives have already begun challenging the proposed reforms. The Consumer Center Brandenburg warned against the dilution of the IFG, pointing to ongoing litigation against the East German Savings Bank Association. The case involves a request for access to documents under the AIG, highlighting how even local institutions can become targets of increased secrecy. Critics fear that the trend toward opacity could set a dangerous precedent, especially if it leads to a broader erosion of democratic norms. Meanwhile, in Hamburg, a separate political battle is unfolding over the rules governing popular initiatives. Two citizen-led campaigns are challenging a proposal by the SPD, Greens, and CDU to make it harder for voters to initiate referendums. The new legislation would require organizers to disclose funding sources, prohibit donations from outside the European Union, and restrict the ability of elected officials to campaign for or against specific initiatives. Critics argue that the changes would disproportionately affect grassroots movements, particularly those reliant on volunteer support. Manfred Brandt, a representative of one of the affected groups, called the inclusion of an transitional clause in the revised bill a “foul play,” arguing that it unfairly advantages the first stage of the referendum process while leaving later stages subject to new rules. The SPD and Greens defend the amendment, citing recommendations from a legal expert who suggested using the term “legal entity” instead of “juristic person” to clarify the scope of transparency requirements. They claim the change provides clarity on which types of support should be disclosed. However, opponents insist that the revisions effectively weaken the integrity of the entire referendum system, creating an uneven playing field for civic engagement. As the debate continues, both sets of proposals reflect a growing tension between security-focused governance and the principles of open, participatory democracy.