RTI law at Centre far away as 2014 ends

ISLAMABAD: The year 2014 has passed without the enactment of the Right to Information (RTI) law by the federal government that has constantly been dragging its feet after the unpleasant experience in Punjab where the bureaucracy is showing organised resistance.
If the experience of the Punjab government is any guide, the PML-N government at the Centre will take 3-4 years before it tables the draft bill in the National Assembly. Chief minister Punjab Mian Shahbaz Sharif is known for quick decision-making but it took him three years to introduce RTI law in the province. The first draft was prepared in 2010, approved from the provincial cabinet shortly before 2013 elections. CM Punjab had promised making it the first law to be passed from Punjab Assembly if voted to power again.
As he returned to power seven laws were passed before his government decided to try RTI legislation. Again, it had figured on the priority list only when the PTI government in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa promulgated RTI law, first through an Ordinance and then getting it approved from the provincial assembly.
Taking cue from KP and Punjab, the federal government also decided to introduce a robust RTI legislation and repeal Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 that is too weak to force bureaucracy into revealing the information requested by citizens.
A law eventually drafted in April 2014 was ready for approval by the federal cabinet before tabling it in the National Assembly but was pulled out of the cabinet’s agenda and has since been swept under the carpet.
This draft law (shared with The News) was undoubtedly the best legislation on RTI if measured by global standards but its significance is not more than a piece of paper if it is not passed by Parliament.
Follow-up queries with the concerned authorities have failed to inspire any hope, as there is no concrete assurance about the timeframe in this regard. Parliament does not seem to be interested either as public information continues to be treated as a privilege reserved for public representatives only.
If a lawmaker submits a question seeking information from any government department, it is readily made available to Parliament. This is in contrast with the bureaucracy’s discriminatory treatment meted out to RTI requests filed by citizens as they are often denied.
The News has personal experience of filing request for information already granted to the lawmakers but denied to the general public. Two cases in point are Privatization Commission and Federal Public Service Commission.
Even Presidency and Parliament don’t consider themselves accountable before public although they are financed by public money. An information request to the Presidency under FOI ordinance 2002 (promulgated by President) was denied on the ‘grounds’ that Presidency is not open to public scrutiny.
Likewise, the lawmakers keenly submit queries to government departments but are reluctant to share their attendance record. An information request filed by Center for Peace and Development Initiatives (CPDI) was denied on the grounds that attendance in Parliament is ‘private matter’ of the parliamentarians.
Federal Ombudsman that is appellant authority to deal with complaints against the government departments tries his best to force them into providing information. The News obtained information from NADRA and FBR only through ombudsman’s intervention, nevertheless this forum lacks legal teeth to enforce its writ hence unable to help in every case. While Punjab’s Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013 has come into effect, it is facing organised resistance from bureaucracy.
First, it does not offer any protection to whistle blowers unlike KP’s RTI law. When this issue was raised in the past, official spokesperson responded that a separate law is being introduced. Nothing has been done so far.
Second, the newly passed Punjab’s RTI law is not being fully implemented because the bureaucracy spares no chance to block the information. In several cases, the requested details were released on the direction of the provincial information commission that has been empowered to enforce its order. This is apparent from the fact that Executive District Officer (education) Vehari was fined equal to his two-month salary for delaying the information to a primary school teacher for more than three months. Another 16 officers were served show-cause notices for blocking access.
As the information commission takes to task those denying information, bureaucracy punished the commission by denying it an office. The chief information commissioner and two commissioners braved such odds by working from their homes.
Bureaucracy also distorts facts when responding to information request. The News sought office address of the information commission. The letters were sent to the information department and information commission.
Both of them were dispatched at the address of the information department, as the latter did not have an office. Instead of forwarding the letter addressed to the information commission, information department responded on its behalf giving wrong information about the information commission office, which was later denied by the chief information commissioner. He had also confirmed that the letter addressed to him was never delivered.