The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Friday, 23 October 2026.
After more than two years of uncertainty, Bangladesh finally has a new Information Commission. We congratulate the newly appointed chief information commissioner the country’s first woman to hold the post and the two other commissioners, and wish them success. Their appointment brings relief to citizens and civil society organisations that have persistently called for the restoration of this vital institution.
For about two years, they
have highlighted the consequences of leaving the commission without
commissioners. Conscious citizens, while continuing to exercise their rights
under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2009, lacked an effective avenue for
redress when public authorities refused to provide information. With
commissioners now in place, the institution can resume hearing complaints and
appeals and take action within its statutory mandate. The greater challenge,
however, lies elsewhere.
The commissioners’ responsibility is not only to dispose of complaints but also to help replace the country’s entrenched administrative culture of secrecy with one of transparency and accountability. The RTI Act’s fundamental objective empowering citizens to understand how public authorities function, scrutinise their activities, and hold them accountable remains far from being achieved. Bureaucratic resistance, inadequate public awareness, and weak institutional capacity have contributed to this failure. Above all, successive governments have lacked a sustained commitment to openness, while successive Information Commissions have failed to use their statutory powers effectively to challenge official secrecy.
The new commission, therefore, must be more than a forum for settling individual disputes. When information is refused, it should carefully examine the reasons, determine whether the refusal was lawful, and ensure that appropriate remedies or penalties are applied where warranted. Securing eventual disclosure alone may leave the underlying violation or the broader culture of secrecy unaddressed.
The RTI Act provides for penalties for specified violations, including unjustified refusal to provide information and deliberate obstruction. Yet previous commissions appeared reluctant to exercise these powers decisively, risking the impression that non-compliance carries little consequence. The new commissioners should enforce the law firmly, fairly, and consistently, paying particular attention to repeated or deliberate violations. A few well-reasoned decisions imposing warranted sanctions could do more to change official behaviour than numerous awareness seminars.
That said, some information may legitimately be withheld under the law. But exemptions from disclosure for reasons set out in the law are exceptions to the principle of openness, not excuses to be used as convenient. A public authority invoking an exemption must identify the relevant legal provision and explain precisely why it applies. Merely citing the act should not suffice. The commission must independently scrutinise such explanations, especially when public expenditure, essential services, or government decisions are involved. Where only part of a document is exempt from disclosure, it should consider whether the remainder can be released.
As discussed in an earlier article, Sri Lanka’s RTI Commission and courts, in a case concerning former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s departure during a political crisis, distinguished sensitive security information from details of public expenditure. While protecting information legitimately exempt from disclosure, they upheld the right to access non-exempt information. The lesson is clear: claims of secrecy must withstand rigorous legal scrutiny.
As a statutory adjudicatory body, the Information Commission should issue reasoned decisions that identify the issues, consider both parties’ arguments, apply the relevant legal provisions, and explain its conclusions. Brief directions may settle individual disputes but do little to establish consistent interpretations of the law. Publishing significant decisions in an accessible, searchable format would also guide officials and applicants, promote consistency, and gradually build a valuable body of RTI jurisprudence. Attention must also be given to establishing an effective follow-up and monitoring mechanism, including accountability measures to ensure that concerned designated officers implement decisions in a timely manner.
We have previously documented how ordinary citizens have sought information about schools, hospitals, social protection, land, public works, local public resources, etc. In northern Bangladesh, applicants have questioned the disposal of government trees, investigated abandoned projects, and demanded better services. Some have faced intimidation from officials unwilling to accept their right to ask questions. The commission should respond promptly to such allegations of unlawful refusal, harassment or retaliation, taking appropriate action within its powers. Women, rural residents, and disadvantaged applicants deserve particular attention.
The backlog of cases accumulated during the prolonged absence of commissioners also demands a published, time-bound plan for disposing of pending cases. The RTI regime’s success cannot be measured solely by the number of applications received or complaints resolved, however. Public authorities must also proactively disclose important information, including their functions, decisions, budgets, expenditure and services, as required by the law.
It bears repeating how vital it is that the commission monitors compliance, publishes its findings, promotes sound record management, and ensures that information officers receive adequate training. It could also publish comparative assessments of public authorities’ disclosure performance using transparent criteria. Such measures would help make openness a routine administrative practice rather than an exception secured through complaints.
The commission must also practise the transparency it demands by regularly publishing its decisions, penalties, compliance rates, and case statistics. It should also consult journalists, civil society organisations, and grassroots RTI users. Above all, it must act independently of political and bureaucratic pressure. The government, for its part, must provide adequate resources while respecting that independence.
In the final analysis, the commissioners inherit not simply a backlog of cases needing adjudication but also an unfinished democratic mission. Their success in the long term will be measured by whether public officials become more willing to disclose information and citizens more confident in demanding it. They take office amid high expectations, shaped by both the commission’s prolonged inactivity and the changed political environment post-uprising. We hope they will rise to the challenge and ensure that citizens’ right to know is not merely a promise enshrined in law but a reality in everyday life.
Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are, respectively, the chairman and deputy director (RTI) of Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
After more than two years of uncertainty, Bangladesh finally has a new Information Commission. We congratulate the newly appointed chief information commissioner the country’s first woman to hold the post and the two other commissioners, and wish them success. Their appointment brings relief to citizens and civil society organisations that have persistently called for the restoration of this vital institution.
The commissioners’ responsibility is not only to dispose of complaints but also to help replace the country’s entrenched administrative culture of secrecy with one of transparency and accountability. The RTI Act’s fundamental objective empowering citizens to understand how public authorities function, scrutinise their activities, and hold them accountable remains far from being achieved. Bureaucratic resistance, inadequate public awareness, and weak institutional capacity have contributed to this failure. Above all, successive governments have lacked a sustained commitment to openness, while successive Information Commissions have failed to use their statutory powers effectively to challenge official secrecy.
The new commission, therefore, must be more than a forum for settling individual disputes. When information is refused, it should carefully examine the reasons, determine whether the refusal was lawful, and ensure that appropriate remedies or penalties are applied where warranted. Securing eventual disclosure alone may leave the underlying violation or the broader culture of secrecy unaddressed.
The RTI Act provides for penalties for specified violations, including unjustified refusal to provide information and deliberate obstruction. Yet previous commissions appeared reluctant to exercise these powers decisively, risking the impression that non-compliance carries little consequence. The new commissioners should enforce the law firmly, fairly, and consistently, paying particular attention to repeated or deliberate violations. A few well-reasoned decisions imposing warranted sanctions could do more to change official behaviour than numerous awareness seminars.
That said, some information may legitimately be withheld under the law. But exemptions from disclosure for reasons set out in the law are exceptions to the principle of openness, not excuses to be used as convenient. A public authority invoking an exemption must identify the relevant legal provision and explain precisely why it applies. Merely citing the act should not suffice. The commission must independently scrutinise such explanations, especially when public expenditure, essential services, or government decisions are involved. Where only part of a document is exempt from disclosure, it should consider whether the remainder can be released.
As discussed in an earlier article, Sri Lanka’s RTI Commission and courts, in a case concerning former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s departure during a political crisis, distinguished sensitive security information from details of public expenditure. While protecting information legitimately exempt from disclosure, they upheld the right to access non-exempt information. The lesson is clear: claims of secrecy must withstand rigorous legal scrutiny.
As a statutory adjudicatory body, the Information Commission should issue reasoned decisions that identify the issues, consider both parties’ arguments, apply the relevant legal provisions, and explain its conclusions. Brief directions may settle individual disputes but do little to establish consistent interpretations of the law. Publishing significant decisions in an accessible, searchable format would also guide officials and applicants, promote consistency, and gradually build a valuable body of RTI jurisprudence. Attention must also be given to establishing an effective follow-up and monitoring mechanism, including accountability measures to ensure that concerned designated officers implement decisions in a timely manner.
We have previously documented how ordinary citizens have sought information about schools, hospitals, social protection, land, public works, local public resources, etc. In northern Bangladesh, applicants have questioned the disposal of government trees, investigated abandoned projects, and demanded better services. Some have faced intimidation from officials unwilling to accept their right to ask questions. The commission should respond promptly to such allegations of unlawful refusal, harassment or retaliation, taking appropriate action within its powers. Women, rural residents, and disadvantaged applicants deserve particular attention.
The backlog of cases accumulated during the prolonged absence of commissioners also demands a published, time-bound plan for disposing of pending cases. The RTI regime’s success cannot be measured solely by the number of applications received or complaints resolved, however. Public authorities must also proactively disclose important information, including their functions, decisions, budgets, expenditure and services, as required by the law.
It bears repeating how vital it is that the commission monitors compliance, publishes its findings, promotes sound record management, and ensures that information officers receive adequate training. It could also publish comparative assessments of public authorities’ disclosure performance using transparent criteria. Such measures would help make openness a routine administrative practice rather than an exception secured through complaints.
The commission must also practise the transparency it demands by regularly publishing its decisions, penalties, compliance rates, and case statistics. It should also consult journalists, civil society organisations, and grassroots RTI users. Above all, it must act independently of political and bureaucratic pressure. The government, for its part, must provide adequate resources while respecting that independence.
In the final analysis, the commissioners inherit not simply a backlog of cases needing adjudication but also an unfinished democratic mission. Their success in the long term will be measured by whether public officials become more willing to disclose information and citizens more confident in demanding it. They take office amid high expectations, shaped by both the commission’s prolonged inactivity and the changed political environment post-uprising. We hope they will rise to the challenge and ensure that citizens’ right to know is not merely a promise enshrined in law but a reality in everyday life.
Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are, respectively, the chairman and deputy director (RTI) of Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
.JPG)
.JPG)
