Making commissions’ reports public to embarrass govt: Law ministry

ISLAMABAD: The Law Ministry lives up to its reputation of refusing information as another RTI request seeking reports of a judicial commission has been rejected, arguing that making them public will create “unnecessary problems, embarrassing situation and open a Pandora’s box for the government.”

As the Federal Ombudsman refused to accept this argument directing it to release details while hearing a complaint of The News, the ministry has challenged the ministry’s decision before President of Pakistan whose decision is awaited.

Earlier, the ministry declined to share details of the lawyers hired in different cases, by taking refuge behind “Pandora’s box” argument. Ironically, it took no time in making the same information public when sought by an MNA through National Assembly Secretariat thus devising different standards for the rulers and the ruled class.

As for as the latest episode is concerned, The News using Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002, sent a list of five questions in August last year asking about the number of commissions set up from 2008 to 2015; their names and purposes; the amount of money spent on the working of each commission; the implementation status of their recommendations; and copies of the commissions’ reports.

Commissions on Abbottabad incident, enforced disappearances and Hamid Mir attack are included among them. Reports of slain tribal journalist, Hayatullah Khan and the one relating torture on this correspondent have also been swept under carpet.

Needless to say that heaven didn’t fall after making public Saleem Shehzad commission report; its recommendations were not implemented though. The ministry didn’t bother to answer in the beginning that was only submitted when a complaint was filed before the FO by The News. In its reply, the ministry came up with a novel argument that it was declared among the classified agencies through a cabinet order dated April 4, 1993, an argument dismissed by the FO.

“The Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 was promulgated and enacted as a law in 2002 superseding the order of 1993 classifying the ministry as a secret entity and thus prevails,” the FO noted in its decision declaring the cabinet order ineffective and the ministry’s status “being declared as a classified/secret is not tenable.”

Instead of submitting to the FO’s ruling, the ministry went in appeal to the Presidency, the final authority that in a landmark judgment rejected in the past the National Assembly Secretariat’s argument of not making public the attendance record which was being termed as “private issue” of lawmakers. The Secretariat has since been uploading the attendance record on the NA’s website and no privacy has been breached other than letting the public know how punctual their representatives are.

In addition to repeating its argument of a classified status, the ministry in its representation before the Presidency also quoted a past precedent wherein an RTI activist Zahid Abdullah’s plea of seeking lawyers’ fee record was turned down.

However, the chronology of the ministry’s decision on Zahid Abdullah case indicate it won favorable verdict by misguiding the Presidency then and has been doing it again by concealing facts. 

On May 05, 2008, Zahid Abdullah submitted an information request. Details of the lawyers hired by the government from October 01, 2002 to March 20, 2008 and the fee paid to them was demanded. The ministry refused on the grounds that the “requisite information falls within the mischief of Section 8 of the said Ordinance” and can open a “Pandora box.”

A news report titled “Law Ministry protecting Musharraf’s legal extravagance” carried in The News on July 14, 2008 highlighted this blockade. Begum Nuzhat Sadiq, a PML-N MNA, submitted the same questions in the National Assembly Secretariat after reading this news report to test whether the detail is denied to her or not.

The ministry was quick to release the requisite information that was tabled in the Assembly on August 11, 2008. Next day, several newspapers printed details. Neither any mischief was occurred nor pandora box opened due to this information.

Meanwhile, Zahid filed a complaint before the FO who directed the release of the information. The ministry instead filed a representation before the president that was accepted on February 01, 2013, some four years and five months after the information had already been made public. The ministry, however, kept the president in the dark about it.

An RTI request by The News in 2015 was made seeking details of lawyers in different cases and fee paid to them. The ministry didn’t answer. When the FO sought a reply on my complaint (No. HQR/6650/15), the ministry partially answered the questions and important details were again withheld claiming “exemption in terms of article 8 of the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002.” 

Zahid’s another request seeking information about the advertisements released to the print media and the expenses incurred on them didn’t have a different fate either.

The law ministry doesn’t stand out as the only notorious agency for blocking the details, other departments have not set a good precedent either. Experience indicates they tend to happily share the information when questions are submitted by lawmakers but refuse when demanded by public.

The RTI requests by The News to departments like the Federal Public Service Commission and Privatization Commission were also refused with the responding agencies either declaring the requisite information as “secret” or out-right denying to have them; notwithstanding the fact they were already laid before parliament and in public knowledge.