The right to know

Important legislation seems to be the least important task for our legislators, for whom both houses have become important avenues for playing politics, instead of legislating to strengthen our democracy. One of the laws that has been on the backburner is the Right of Access to Information Bill (the RAI bill). The bill has been in the making for over a decade and a half since an ordinance was passed in 2002 to grant a very restricted Right to Information (RTI) to the people of Pakistan. Right to information became part of our constitutional rights almost seven years ago with the passage of the 18th       Amendment. Provincial governments, including Sindh, Khyber Pakthunkhwa and Punjab, passed respective legislation related to the right to information – albeit delayed – before the federal government. Now, the first concrete step has been taken at the federal level after the Senate passed the RAI 2017 bill   last week. The ruling party has congratulated itself on the passage of the law but there are grounds to hold the self-adulation for now. First, the law has to pass through the Lower House. But, more importantly, the restrictions to access that the legislation marks out stand out glaringly. Official records of the armed forces, defence installations, individual bank accounts and matters deemed to be of ‘national security’ – all of these subjects will remain shielded from the curious eyes of the public.

The positive side of the law is that it sets out a mechanism, something that has been missing from the provincial RTI laws. Each department will need to appoint an RAI principal officer to whom any citizen can make an information request. The relevant information will need to be provided within 3 to 10 days. If it is unavailable, a written response will need to be provided explaining why it could not be shared. Citizens will also have a right to appeal. Another positive is that the law seems to limit the application of the term ‘national interest’ (usually used to prevent disclosure of information). If lives are under threat or corruption is involved, then these issues will trump any claim to protect ‘national interest.’ One senator has suggested that the law could open up the possibility of eliminating forced disappearances – or at least discoursing the much-maligned practice. There is a need to end the culture of secrecy in government affairs.  The trouble is that, despite the enthusiasm with which RTI legislation has been greeted, unlike our neighbour India, a culture of RTI activism has not developed here. Such requests are few and far between – and are mostly denied at the provincial level. The truth of the federal law will be revealed in its practice. Insufficient reporting on RTI cases is one of the reasons why no one really knows how well the provincial laws are doing. But there is enough information to suggest that many have been miserable failures in terms of serving public interest. In its current form, the federal RTI law has enough manoeuvring room to be able to serve the public. It will be important that the bill does not lose these features once it reaches the National Assembly.