The News on Sunday: PK: Sunday,
May 08, 2016.
The process
of filing information requests under the Right to Information laws should be
easy and cost-effective.
One of the
core principles of Right to Information (RTI) legislation is that the process
of filing information requests should be easy and cost-effective. The logic
behind this principle is to facilitate citizens in exercising their right to
information.
First
generation of RTI laws in Pakistan, i.e., federal Freedom of Information
Ordinance 2002 and its replicas in Balochistan and Sindh in the shape of
Balochistan Freedom of Information Act 2005 and Sindh Freedom of Information
Act 2006 do not adhere to this principle.
Under the
rules framed for Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 and the Balochistan
Freedom of Information Act 2005, citizens are required to submit applications
on prescribed forms and deposit Rs50 for first 10 pages of the requested
information in National Bank of Pakistan.
It has been
seen that neither citizens nor the NBP staff know about the account head under
which the fee is to be deposited. Furthermore, under all these laws, in case a
request for information is denied, the complaint is to be lodged with federal
or provincial ombudsman, as the case may be.
The office of
ombudsman has proven to be toothless in acting on the complaints lodged by
citizens and civil society groups. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that
citizens have not taken fancy to using these laws as even civil society groups
dedicated to working for transparency and greater flow of information from
public bodies to citizens have found it extremely hard to use these laws.
In sharp
contrast to the 1st generation of RTI laws, 2nd generation of RTI laws, i.e.,
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Right to Information Act 2013 and the Punjab Transparency
and Right to Information Act 2013 provide an easy and cost-effective process of
filing information requests and for lodging complaints.
Under both
these laws, information requests can be submitted on a plain paper and there is
no fee for filing information requests and the first 20 pages of information
are to be provided free of cost. Complaint redressal mechanisms are far more
effective than those envisaged in 1st generation RTI laws. Independent and
autonomous information commissions set-up under these laws are not only
mandated to decide on complaints within a certain time-frame but these
commission have also been empowered to impose penalties on officials who
unlawfully deny or delay access to the requested information.
No wonder, we
have witnessed a surge of information requests filed to provincial public
bodies in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab.
Four distinct
trends emerge when we scrutinise requests for information filed by citizens
under both first and second generation RTI laws in Pakistan. First, as pointed
out earlier, the dichotomy between the number of requests for information filed
under first and second generation RTI laws is too pronounced to be ignored.
There is no data available on the websites of federal and provincial Ombudsman
about the number of complaints lodged under federal, Balochistan and Sindh
freedom of information laws.
If those
working in the area of transparency and right to information are to be
believed, not more than 500 or 600 information requests have been filed under
these laws in all these years. Whereas, according to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Information Commission web site, number of complaints lodged stands at 1784 on
March 01, 2016.
Punjab
Information Commission has yet to update complaint figures on its web site but
according to news item published in the press on February 24, 2016, Chief
Information Commissioner shared that the commission received over 1800
complaints ever since its establishment in March 2014.
This suggests
that a higher number of complaints have been lodged with information
commissions in relatively far less period of time when compared with the
complaint lodged with federal and provincial Ombudsman. However, when seen in
relationship with population of these provinces, the number of requests for
information is staggeringly low which shows that both information commissions
have failed to raise awareness level about right to information in their
provinces.
The second
trend that has clearly emerged is that public officials, apart from employing
host of other tactics for not divulging the requested information, do not feel
any qualms to take punitive measures against those who request information.
Ever since the enactment of these laws, at least 3 teachers have faced the
wrath of bureaucracy in the shape of transfers, suspensions and enquiries for
seeking copies of seniority lists.
As reported
in the press on March 25, 2015, district education officer (DEO) Nowshera
suspended two school teachers Ijaz Ur Rahman and Mudassir Shah under West
Pakistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules 1966.According to Rahman, he was
first transferred and then suspended because he had sought information about
seniority list and PTC Fund from District Officer, Education Department.
Sub
Divisional Education Officer (SDEO) Nowshera, Abdul Samad, said that such
information requests are not responded to as requested information is displayed
on notice boards of circle offices. Samad obviously did not know that even if
the requested information is available in the public domain, the public body is
bound under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Right to Information Act 2013 to guide the
requester as to where the requested information could be obtained. Earlier in
June 2014, Executive District Officer Vehari launched enquiry against a primary
school teacher for seeking seniority list under the Punjab Transparency and
Right to Information Act 2013.
Apart from
these three teachers, On March 04, 2015, it was reported in the national press
that the Punjab University found a former professor guilty of misuse of
authority in an inquiry conducted after he had requested release of information
under the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013 about faculty
who continued to occupy official residences after their retirement.
The third
trend pertains to the nature of requests for information being filed by
citizens. According to Mukhtar Ahmed Ali, Information Commissioner, Punjab
Information Commission, employees of government departments have filed
information requests about their issues pertaining to transfers, promotions and
enquiries.
Citizens have
also filed information requests on issues surrounding recruitments and have
sought certified copies of merit list. Information requests have also been
filed about the maintenance of parks and water filter plans. While journalists
have used these laws for public accountability and civil society groups to
highlight incidents of maladministration, citizens have used these laws to
solve their personal issues and for the attainment of their rights.
Fourth, both
Punjab Information Commission and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information Commission
have imposed penalties though sparingly so far, on public officials who have
denied citizens access to the requested information. Punjab Information
Commission imposed fine equal to sixty days of the salary of District Officer,
Education Department, Vehari on October 24, 2014 and also said that “he acted
with malafide intentions to first delay and then obstruct access to the
requested information by intimidating the complainant to withdraw the complaint
filed with the commission”.
This was the
first ever penalty imposed on an official in the country for not providing
access to information. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information Commission imposed the
first ever penalty under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Right to Information Act 2013 on
July 16, 2015 when it slapped a fine of Rs25000 on Registrar, Abdul Wali Khan
university, Sher Alam Khan for not providing information about hiring of the
staff to a citizen.
On December
19, 2015, Qazi Sajiduddin, AIG legal, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Department got
dubious distinction of being fined twice
and was asked to deposit Rs50,000 for failing to provide copies of enquiry
reports to fellow colleagues. Interestingly, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information
Commission, unlike Punjab Information Commission, instructs that the fine
imposed be paid to the applicant as a compensation.
Relatively
low number of complaints lodged with information commissions suggests that both
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information Commission and Punjab Information Commission
need to launch massive mass awareness campaigns which are the responsibility of
these commissions under their respective laws.
While
imposing penalty on officials for unlawfully denying or delaying access to
information is a step in the right direction, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information
Commission needs to rethink the policy of compensating an applicant with the
fine money. There is no precedent from other countries for such compensation
and fine is collected by the government. Furthermore, such a practise is surely
bound to create animosity between an applicant and an official each time an
official is asked to pay fine as compensation to an applicant.
.JPG)
.JPG)
