Business Recorder: PK: Friday,
March 17, 2017.
Congratulations!
Sindh has finally joined Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in making governments
and their institutions open, transparent and accountable. Well, at least on
paper. Earlier this week, Sindh Assembly passed the Sindh Transparency and
Right to Information (TRTI) Bill 2016, thereby replacing the toothless Sindh
Freedom of Information Act 2006.
While the
final version of the bill passed by the Sindh Assembly had not been put on its
website at the time of writing this note, the amendments (made by the assemblys
select committee) to earlier drafts of the bill suggests that on the whole, the
passed bill is an improved version of its earlier versions, though it still
contains a few disconcerting clauses. Sources say that the amendments proposed
by the select committee were accepted with much ado.
Timelines in
general have been shortened, whether for appointment of designated information
officer, or, for instance, shorter time period within which a public body must
provide information. In the previous draft, the maximum allowed time frame was
30 working days with an extension of 15 working days if the required
information is not readily available. Those timelines have been amended
downwards to 15 working days with an extension of 10 working days.
The
definition of the public body has also been expanded; it now also includes CM
secretariat, something which was missing in the previous draft. In this
context, Sindh RTI law now stands parallel to KPs where secretariats of both CM
and governor are included in the definition of public body which have to make
certain proactive disclosures as well as hire a designated information officer
to provide information for queries made under the Sindh TRTI law. In Punjabs
law the CM secretariat is not defined as a public body and thereby outside the
ambit of Punjabs RTI law.
An
improvement is also visible in application procedure. In the previous draft the
applicant was required to furnish reasons for the request of information from
public body. Following Punjab, KP and international best practise, the amended
draft has done away with the requirement to furnish any reasons on the part of
applicant.
In so far as
proactive disclosures by a public body are concerned, the amended bill now also
includes maintenance of record in respect of applications for information
received and actions taken thereof. However, in the amended bill, under
6(1)(f), Sindh has culled the opportunities for the public to provide input
into decision making or to be consulted about decisions.
Like Punjab,
and KP, the previous version of Sindhs TRTI bill mandated public bodies to
proactively disclose description of its decision-making processes and any
opportunities for the public to provide input into decision making or to be
consulted about decisions. The revised version of that clause now only reads:
description of its decision-making processes.
This is a
step backward. The list should have been expanded and made more specific by
taking a leaf from KPs RTI law, under which, for instance, public bodies also
need to proactively disclose relevant facts and background information relating
to important policies and decisions being formulate or made.
One positive
addition in the amended list of proactive disclosure is the qualification of
officers and key employees of public bodies in Sindh. This disclosure of
qualification is not found in KP or Punjabs laws. Knowing the history of
undeserving appointments, this clause, if implemented by public bodies, could
shed more light on nepotistic appointments in the province.
The list of
exemption from disclosure also has been made more specific, which is a good
thing as some aspects of the exemption list were vague and impossibly wide in
the previous draft. However, the exemption has also been expanded, a subject on
which this column awaits a discussion by legal experts.
In the final
analysis, however, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Many good laws
have been made in this country and many left unimplemented. The passing of the
RTI is only the first step; implementing it, is another, and to that end, the
demand for information by the media, the academia and the civil society at
large is equally critical. When it comes to transparency, supply does not
always create its own demand.