While Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab governments have adopted creditable new right to information laws, the other two provinces as well as the federal government remain reluctant to introduce progressive changes. A Senate select committee, seeking to replace the Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002, has now proposed an important Right to Know (RTI) bill in line with information laws common in all functioning democracies. Salient features of the bill include citizens' right to access information about matters pertaining to government affairs; provision of information, in writing, by relevant institutions on 'missing persons' within 3 days of the filing of a request for facts; and protection of whistleblowers who raise a flag on corruption and misappropriation in public entities as well as security agencies.

The bill is a radical departure from the 2002 law that is virtually useless. Under it, the government can, and does, deny information on flimsy pretexts. Although people can approach the Ombudsman to seek redress, the process takes too long and hardly ever works in favour of citizens looking for information. Under the proposed law, a three-member commission, with power to order public bodies to disclose information and provide records, is to be formed to hear RTI requests. The commission is to entertain requests for records from the past 20 years, while records older than that are to automatically go in the public domain. In the event, the required information is withheld the concerned officer will have to give the reason in writing. Likewise, security agencies will be bound to provide information on 'missing persons'.

These are much desired changes to establish transparency in the way the government and its various departments work in this country. But the proposed law is likely to run into resistance from those in the habit of acting without fear of any challenge: the government, bureaucracy and security agencies. It is worth noting that when recently information was sought about seemingly as mundane a matter as gifts the Prime Minister received during his trips abroad in the last three years, the government refused to oblige citing sensitivity of foreign relations, which creates even more suspicion about the reason for non-disclosure. The bureaucrats like to withhold information to cover up acts of omission and commission. They also see it as a source of power which could get diluted if shared with the citizenry. And of course the security agencies regard themselves as a privileged class which is free to do as it likes. Considering these powerful interests, the new RTI bill has little chance of becoming law when it comes before the ruling party-dominated lower house for approval. Still, it is an important step forward in initiating a debate on a vital public interest subject; it may at some point, help bring about change for the better.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2017