When the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government promulgated its Right to Information law on August 18, 2013, it was hailed as one of the best legislations of its kind. One global ranking said it was the most effective Right to Information law in the world.
Months later, on December 12, Punjab issued its own Transparency and Right to Information law. Formulated in consultation with local information rights bodies and following international standards, both laws were outstanding pieces of legislation.
But more than two years later, a report says the outcome has been less than desirable. “There has been a general reluctance in complying with the laws”, specifically in sharing what types of information public organizations have, and how citizens can access it, according to the report released by the Digital Rights Foundation and the Coalition of Right to Information.
Section 5 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Right to Information Act and Section 4 of the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act require all public bodies to proactively disclose information on their websites, notice boards or anywhere public.
“The RTI laws state that all the public bodies are bound to give away information pertaining to tenders, grants, body functions, budget, bidding process and so on,” says Zahid Abdullah, program manager at the Center for Peace and Development Initiatives (CPDI).
The key areas in which public bodies are bound to disclose information proactively include functions of the body and its officers, description of its decision making process, details of the expenditures of the body, as well as the perks and privileges enjoyed by its employees.
But a number of websites have broken links and incomplete information.
“It is our weakness that we lack digital knowledge, but we have formulated a plan to get these websites fixed ourselves with the help of the IT Board,” says Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s chief information commissioner, Maj (r) Sahibzada Muhammad Khalid.
The information commissioner in Punjab, Mukhtar Ahmad Ali, makes the same acknowledgment. “There is a lack of resources in many public bodies,” he says. “Some might not have IT people on board, others may not have enough funds to develop or revamp their websites.”
None of the websites, with the exception of the website of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Right to Information Commission, provide clear instructions on how to request information. Unlisted and uncategorized numbers and email addresses leave the visitors confused. Most of the websites do not provide a budget-expenditure comparison.
These are not the only violations of the Right to Information laws.
“One aspect that is alarming and suspicious is the absence of information about the recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by public bodies,” notes the report, which is fourth in a series of evaluations.
There are several reasons for this non-compliance.
“The 1923 Official Secrets Act has been embedded into the minds of government employees,” says Maj (r) Muhammad Khalid. “Only some years ago, no official would talk to anyone from the media. But things are gradually changing now.”
“Sometimes there is a willingness to make the system better, but there is a lack of resources,” says Nighat Dad, the executive director of Digital Rights Foundation. “But the right to access information online is a fundamental right of all citizens, and the government must take it very seriously.”
Most government officials are not aware that this proactive disclosure is required by law, or what proactive disclosure means.
“Many officers consider offering all the information online as a threat to their bureaucratic privilege,” Nighat Dad believes.
The laws include penalties for officials who do not comply on time. “For each day of delay, they lose two days’ salary,” says Zahid Abdullah, an expert in RTI laws.
In one case in Punjab, the district education officer in Vehari lost two months’ worth of salary. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the police department was fined Rs 50,000 for not allowing access to information under the RTI law.
“I have written letters to all public bodies, asking them to reveal new appointments, budget information and expenditure for 2015, information about official meetings, and seniority lists, by March 1,” the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief information commissioner said.
His counterpart in Punjab says the process will take some time to streamline. “We encourage public bodies to put all their data on their websites, because it is the easiest way for them and the public to access it. Many of them have come to believe that it is true, and we are expecting things to get better.”
Months later, on December 12, Punjab issued its own Transparency and Right to Information law. Formulated in consultation with local information rights bodies and following international standards, both laws were outstanding pieces of legislation.
But more than two years later, a report says the outcome has been less than desirable. “There has been a general reluctance in complying with the laws”, specifically in sharing what types of information public organizations have, and how citizens can access it, according to the report released by the Digital Rights Foundation and the Coalition of Right to Information.
Section 5 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Right to Information Act and Section 4 of the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act require all public bodies to proactively disclose information on their websites, notice boards or anywhere public.
“The RTI laws state that all the public bodies are bound to give away information pertaining to tenders, grants, body functions, budget, bidding process and so on,” says Zahid Abdullah, program manager at the Center for Peace and Development Initiatives (CPDI).
"The Official Secrets Act has become a mindset"
The key areas in which public bodies are bound to disclose information proactively include functions of the body and its officers, description of its decision making process, details of the expenditures of the body, as well as the perks and privileges enjoyed by its employees.
But a number of websites have broken links and incomplete information.
“It is our weakness that we lack digital knowledge, but we have formulated a plan to get these websites fixed ourselves with the help of the IT Board,” says Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s chief information commissioner, Maj (r) Sahibzada Muhammad Khalid.
The information commissioner in Punjab, Mukhtar Ahmad Ali, makes the same acknowledgment. “There is a lack of resources in many public bodies,” he says. “Some might not have IT people on board, others may not have enough funds to develop or revamp their websites.”
None of the websites, with the exception of the website of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Right to Information Commission, provide clear instructions on how to request information. Unlisted and uncategorized numbers and email addresses leave the visitors confused. Most of the websites do not provide a budget-expenditure comparison.
These are not the only violations of the Right to Information laws.
“One aspect that is alarming and suspicious is the absence of information about the recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by public bodies,” notes the report, which is fourth in a series of evaluations.
There are several reasons for this non-compliance.
“The 1923 Official Secrets Act has been embedded into the minds of government employees,” says Maj (r) Muhammad Khalid. “Only some years ago, no official would talk to anyone from the media. But things are gradually changing now.”
“Sometimes there is a willingness to make the system better, but there is a lack of resources,” says Nighat Dad, the executive director of Digital Rights Foundation. “But the right to access information online is a fundamental right of all citizens, and the government must take it very seriously.”
Most government officials are not aware that this proactive disclosure is required by law, or what proactive disclosure means.
“Many officers consider offering all the information online as a threat to their bureaucratic privilege,” Nighat Dad believes.
The laws include penalties for officials who do not comply on time. “For each day of delay, they lose two days’ salary,” says Zahid Abdullah, an expert in RTI laws.
In one case in Punjab, the district education officer in Vehari lost two months’ worth of salary. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the police department was fined Rs 50,000 for not allowing access to information under the RTI law.
“I have written letters to all public bodies, asking them to reveal new appointments, budget information and expenditure for 2015, information about official meetings, and seniority lists, by March 1,” the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief information commissioner said.
His counterpart in Punjab says the process will take some time to streamline. “We encourage public bodies to put all their data on their websites, because it is the easiest way for them and the public to access it. Many of them have come to believe that it is true, and we are expecting things to get better.”