|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
Editorial analysis Flaw
and order Freedom to
hide 'Changes
and amendments can be made at all stages of legislation' By Aoun Sahi PML-Q leaders can't stop attributing the most liberal laws for media in Pakistan to the Musharraf regime. One such law is the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 that enables not only journalists but also the general public to have access to information. However, six years since its promulgation, the efficacy of the law is still in question. Talk to the journalists and you realise that a majority of them do not know much about the ordinance. Those who do, complain of the whole process of obtaining information as cumbersome and ineffective.
Pakistani constitution only talks about the freedom of expression and speech in its Article 19 which logically follows the individual's right to know, something the constitution is silent about. You are free to protest about what when you know nothing? The Supreme Court in one of its decisions in 1993 tried to rectify the anomaly by interpreting Article 19 to be inclusive of the right to information. But that was just an aside in history with no actual movement and no recourse by the citizenry to the interpreted article of the constitution. After one or two similar asides, Pakistan's first freedom of information law -- the word 'right' had been carefully replaced by freedom -- came about during Musharraf's presidency, first as an ordinance and then made into an act of parliament. This appears strange till you get to know that the law followed a conditionality of Asian Development Bank that Pakistan had to meet if it were to receive the $350 million aid under the Access to Justice Program. Of course, there were many other 'pro-people' developments taking place alongside like the setting up of consumer courts etc. which were all granted to the people as a consequence of fulfilling the conditionalities of international donors. But right to information was different; it involved much more than what a consumer court hoped to achieve. It involved government and its institutions that were traditionally trained to hide, to perpetuate ignorance; in short, to function under the Official Secrets Act. Hence, the law that came about was toothless, had too many exemptions, and was broadly seen as meant to deny information. According to the law 2002, the denial of requests within the prescribed time provided for a recourse to the Wafaqi Mohtasib or the Federal Tax Ombudsman. Going by the statistics, in the four years 2003-2007, only 51 complaints were received by the Wafaqi Mohtasib. Of these only eight were lodged by members of the general public, the rest were filed by civil society organisations -- so much for the efficacy of the law and its appeal among the people. India's quest for a right to information law began around the same time and makes an interesting comparison. It shows how a law meant to promote good governance and public accountability works its way in a genuine democratic setup where it is possible to organise people to protest for their rights. Compare this with our own democratic wasteland where the trust deficit is so huge that no one is ready to use the law when it is available. Indian law, even in its final shape, may not be a perfect law but there was a democratic struggle of people that forced the parliament to enact it -- quite a contrast with the conditionality-driven legislation that we in Pakistan opted for. Pakistan People's Party, an opposition voice in the previous setup, often pointed out the lacunae in the Freedom of Information Law 2002. One of its major criticisms was that the law does not override the Official Secrets Act. Now that it's in power and all set to bring in its revised and improved, as it claims, information law, we hope that all such concerns will be addressed. Most of all we hope, rather selfishly, that the new information law is used by the media people in bringing truth to the fore. The absence of an effective information law becomes an excuse for the lazy investigative reporter, something we have paid special attention to in this Special Report. As the government prepares to table in the parliament, the Freedom of Information Bill, 2008, this should be the final but the first step in a series of several that should be taken if the spirit of the law is to prevail By Adnan Rehmat If we recognise that one
of the pillars of democracy is public participation, it follows then that If these be the yardsticks by which to measure the health of Pakistan's democratic and accountability processes, we will find it difficult to reconcile the fact of there never being a more freer, more pluralistic and more responsive media that is reflecting popular sentiments (and by that extension, more information availability than ever) and the disempowerment that the citizenry feels at this point in time in the country's political evolution. Is the Pakistani citizenry participating in policy formulation exercises? Is it succeeding in advancing public interest? Is it successful in maintaining effective accountability? Only the most of optimistic would affirm that this is the case. And if the answers are in the negative, could it be that the laws that are supposed to ensure equal rights and equal treatment to all actually get away with keeping some elite groups more equal than others? Whose Language? Because Pakistani laws are not drafted in Urdu or regional/local languages they remain practically inaccessible to the ordinary citizen. The law for the ordinary citizen does not work for him because he has no affinity, understanding, participation or ownership of it. Pakistan's declared national languages may be English and Urdu but the constitution and the laws are drafted only in English. This makes the citizen dependent on lawyers and jurists for even its invocation much less interpretation and jurisdiction. The citizen's involvement is limited to paying others to choose which laws will work in his favour and that is a recipe for perpetual disempowerment. This practically renders even the average law elitist for the ordinary citizen. While the spirit of a law may reflect, to varying degrees (albeit not fully as it should be in Pakistan), popular situations and frameworks on that issue, the language it is drafted in -- English -- makes it extremely difficult for the ordinary citizen to invoke or employ it to work in his favour. Making the laws work is one thing, having access to information on an issue agitating the citizen that can inform his decision, is quite another. Governments all over the world are the biggest repositories of information. With its colonial heritage of keeping citizens "at bay" and its emphasis on "ruling over subjects" as opposed to "serving the citizens", the Pakistani governments have historically ensured control over information as a tool to control people's lives. Until 2002, Pakistan did not even have a pluralistic, independent broadcast media (TV and radio) that could offer citizens opportunities to develop alternative perspectives. In the last six years as media pluralism and information abundance have grown, collective debates on non-elitist, everyday-mundane issues that consume people's lives have grown and loosened, to some measure, the government's strong control over information flows. First of Many Steps As the government prepares to table in the parliament, the Freedom of Information Bill, 2008, this should be the final but the first step in a series of several that should be taken if the spirit of the law -- guaranteeing citizens' access to public interest information that is their absolute right and which is jealously and shamelessly guarded by less-than-accountable bureaucrats paid from public's pockets -- is to prevail. The Bill itself would not serve its purported purpose if it does not, among other things, mandate the following: (1)translations of all laws and rules & regulations at the federal, provincial and district levels in Urdu and the regional languages; (2)printed copies should be available free of charge to any and all in all government departments as well as available online. Once the rules and regulations that govern the right to access information held by the government are translated into Urdu and regional languages and pasted onto notice boards of government offices for public facilitation and handed over to bureaucrats, and an awareness and education campaign launched for the public's and officials' benefit, it should become, theoretically speaking, easier for people at the grassroots level to demand information from public offices to determine #foci on accountability. Citizens' Perspectives The proposed law should be considered a failure if it does not become extremely easy to request and obtain any and all types of information about subjects, issues and developments funded from taxpayers' pockets. It should be considered a failure if it does not generate a critical mass for not just on-demand but automatic transparency. Why transparency? As the word itself suggests, transparency is about openness. In terms of democratic governance systems, it is about being able to see what decisions are being made and how they are made, as well as if and how decisions are implemented once they are agreed to. This is why an access to information law that is drafted from a citizen's perspective is critical to transparency. Because currently the average Pakistani citizen does not feel or exercise meaningful and practical ownership of the average law, transparency has been reduced to merely an end in itself whereas it should be a means to an end. This is so because more than anything transparency is about creating the political space for citizens to defend and exercise their rights. And because the average law in general and the Freedom of Information Law in particular does not work for him, the average Pakistani citizen is unable to monitor or influence the affairs of his elected representatives and why decision-making in the legislature, executive or judiciary can, and continues to be, tainted by hidden interests and agendas. In short, the Pakistani citizen's effective disempowerment revolves around his inability to access the information he requires to participate effectively in the democratic process. The Litmus Tests The proposed Freedom of Information Bill will be just another law in the pantheon of other practically inaccessible laws for the Pakistani citizens unless, among other things, it is strengthened with provisions to promote transparency that allow for critical decision-making fora to be open to citizens and media attendance; obligations are placed on political office-bearers to disclose their interests; the right of the media to disseminate information on the affairs of the government is protected without ifs and buts; regular, accurate and user-friendly information on government plans, proposals and policies is available and accessible to the citizens and media in several languages; the executive is mandated to provide regular, accessible reports on its performance in the public domain; not just for media but for the average citizen there is public access to independent audit reports, in all mainstream Pakistani languages, on government spending; and the federal, provincial and district administrations and bodies are subject to account for their performance and fiscal management in the public domain. In the end, nothing is truer than the maxim that information is power and a proactively informed citizenry is an empowered citizenry. Guaranteed, easy, quick and cheap public access to information held by the government, in languages they grow up with, develops understanding of policies and decisions and ensures accountability for decisions and actions. The din of voices rising from everyday talk and mediated communication accruing from Pakistan's exploding media pluralisms are a good thing for nothing changes for good without debate. A good Access to Information Law based on best practices and in languages people are familiar with, will ensure that the debate not only continues but that it is also well informed and helps improves lives. If it fails these litmus tests then the idiom that the law is an ass couldnít be more true in the case of Access to Information Law. A comparative study of the freedom of information laws in India, Pakistan and South Africa Pakistan issued the Freedom of Information Ordinance (FIO) in 2002, while India promulgated the Right to Information (RTI) Act in 2005, and South Africa's Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) came into effect in 2000. The history of FOI efforts in India demonstrates how important the design of FOI legislation is: "where legislation is inherently weak, implementation automatically fails," critics say. The South African model, on the other hand, is unique in that it allows access to information held by all private as well as public bodies. The inclusion of private bodies had much to do with active civil society participation in drafting legislation. Under RTI, all citizens of India have the right to access information. The Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, FIO states that all citizens of Pakistan have the right to access public records. However, PAIA specifies that every person has the right to access information upon request. Meaning of Right to Information It is ironic that in FIO and PAIA there is no such provision. In RTI, "the right to information accessible under the Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to (i)inspection of work, documents, records; (ii)taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records; (iii)taking certified samples of materials; (iv)obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device." Applicability/Scope of Law In RTI, any authority or body established or institution of self-government established or constituted: (i) by or under the Constitution; (ii) by any other law made by Parliament or a State Legislature, (iii) by notification made by an appropriate government, and includes (a)any other body owned, controlled or substantially financed and (b)non-government organisation substantially financed; by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government. As for FIO, "Any Ministry, Division or attached department of the Federal Government; Secretariat of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament); any office of any Board, Commission, Council, or other body established by, or under, a Federal law; courts and tribunals." PAIA has "Any Department of Government, body performing public function under any legislation and private bodies where the information is required for the exercise or protection of any rights." Application on Private Bodies RTI includes "(a)any other body owned, controlled or substantially financed and (b)non-government organisation substantially financed; by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government". Under FOI, there is no application on private bodies. However, PAIA lays down that a requester must be given access to any record of a private body if that record is required for the exercise or protection of any rights. Public Interest Disclosure In India, notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act or exemptions, information may still be disclosed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interests. In FOI, the government can broadly refuse to disclose any other record from the purview of this Ordinance in the public interest. Under the PAIA, both public and private bodies must disclose information when there is evidence of substantial contravention of law or imminent and serious public safety or environment risk involved. And the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in refusing. Time for Providing Access to Information Under RTI, there are 30 working days for granting or refusing the information request; 40 days where confidential third party information has been requested. FOI offers access to required information within 21 days of the receipt of the request. As per PAIA, the information must be made available or notified within 30 days of receipt of request. --
Compiled by Naila Inayat The prevalent right to information law least serves the purpose it's ideally meant for By Shahzada Irfan Ahmed Successive governments
in Pakistan have been inclined towards holding back official information Over the last couple of decades, many states have opened up their information coffers to their citizens in a bid to promote transparency and accountability in their affairs. On the other hand, our government has not even acknowledged the right to information as a basic human right. May be itís for this reason that the successive governments refrained from legislation on this front. It was in October 2002, around the same time when the general elections were being held that President Pervez Musharraf promulgated the Freedom of Information (FOI) Ordinance. This ordinance was later sanctified by the Parliament through a constitutional amendment that validated all laws promulgated by the military dictator. This major development took place 12 years after the first initiative for the right to information was taken back in 1990. At that time Professor Khurshid Ahmed of Jama'at-e-Islami had introduced a private bill in the Senate on this issue. The issue was not taken seriously and was forgotten soon. Later, during the government of Benazir Bhutto, an anti-corruption committee headed by Malik Qasim recommended the enactment of a freedom of information act but it was not paid heed to. It was in 1993 that the Supreme Court of Pakistan interpreted Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which is on freedom of speech and expression, to be inclusive of the right to information. This gave immense strength to the movement launched by civil society organisations to win the right to know. On Jan 29, 1997, Pakistan had first legislation on the subject in the form of the Freedom of Information Ordinance 1997. It was promulgated during the caretaker government headed by the then Prime Minister Malik Meraj Khalid. However, it lapsed as the next government of Mian Nawaz Sharif failed to have it approved from the parliament. Therefore, we can say that the FOI Ordinance 2002 is the effective law under which the general public of Pakistan can ask for official information from the government departments. For those who might be perplexed over the fact that such a law was passed by a military government the answer may be found in the following. Enactment of such a law was a conditionality set by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) under its $350 million Access to Justice Program (AJP). The Musharraf government was simply fulfilling this condition. The said ordinance extends to the whole of Pakistan and is applicable only to the offices of the federal government. Under this law, officers have been designated by the federal ministries who are supposed to provide the requisite information within 21 days. In case there is no response within the said 21 days, a complaint can be filed with the head of the concerned ministry who has 30 days to respond. Even if this forum is not helpful or the response obtained is not satisfactory a complaint can be filed with the Federal Ombudsman or, if it relates to the Federal board of Revenue (FBR), the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FBO). The ordinance has been criticised extensively by different groups on the grounds that it has a weak and slow implementation mechanism, that it includes too many exemptions and gives undue powers to the functionaries of the state to deny the required information. For example, under the Official Secrets Act 1923, they can label any document as classified and hide public information. These public servants can deny public access to noting on files as well as minutes and hand over the information on final outcomes of the meetings or inquiries. The current government is under immense pressure to do away with this 'useless' law and come up with one that serves the very purpose itís meant for. Another major flaw in this law is that it is limited to federal bodies only and does not extend to the provinces which are the repositories of the treasures of information. However, under Section 137 of local government ordinance 2001, the general public can seek information from the concerned official and approach provincial ombudsman in case of non-compliance. Under this law, the public record that can be accessed includes policies and guidelines, transactions involving acquisition and disposal of property and expenditure undertaken by a public body in the performance of its duties, information regarding grant of licenses, allotments and other benefits and agreements made by a public body, final orders and decisions including those related to members of public and any other record which may be notified by the federal public as record for the purpose of this ordinance. However, Section 8 of the FOI Ordinance gives a long list of excluded records that make this law extremely useless for the masses. Some of these are noting on the files, minutes of the meeting, any intermediary opinion or recommendation, record of the banking companies and financial institutions relating to the accounts of their customers, record related to defence forces, defence installations or connected therewith or ancillary to defence and national security, record as declared classified by the government and record related to the privacy of an individual. As if this was not enough, various categories of exempt records have also been mentioned in the law. These include those disclosure of which can harm Pakistan's relations with foreign states, prove harmful to law enforcement and result in commission of offence or facilitate an escape from legal custody, involve invasion of privacy of an identifiable individual and harm economic and commercial interests of public bodies. The mention of these exemptions prove that more stress is on denying human rights to those arrested over security concerns and less on provision of justice to them. Of what use is the law if the law enforcement authorities are given the authority to define national interest and declare an individual security hazard. On the other hand, banks are supposed to hide information related to their account holders even if they are bank defaulters and want to contest again. In this case the individual has priority over larger public interest. Zahid Abdullah of Center for Peace and Development Initiatives (CPDI) tells TNS that the United Nations Principles on Freedom of Information were least followed while drafting the law. For example, he says, the UN stresses the doctrine of maximum exposure on the part of public bodies and says that a refusal to disclose information may not be based on trying to protect the government from embarrassment or the exposure of wrongdoing. The UN guidelines even suggest that the fees for gaining access should not be so high as to deter the applicants and negate the intent of the law and call for grant of protection to whistleblowers from any legal, administrative or employment related for releasing information on wrongdoing. Last but not the least, the procedure to apply for obtaining information also needs to be improved. The time period allowed to the concerned official to give or deny information to the applicant is too long and there is no provision for making urgent requests. Zahid says that the charges for making information requests should also be lowered. Rs 50 for information spanning over 10 or less pages and Rs 5 for every extra page are high for many citizens, he adds. Similarly, the condition to mention the purpose for which the information or record is required shall also be done away with. "To be informed is the common purpose of all trying to benefit from this law," he declares. Appeal mechanism In the absence of such mechanism, non-compliant parties can flout rules with impunity For a law to be effective, a strong implementation and appeal mechanism is a must. In the absence of such mechanism the non-compliant parties can flout rules with impunity. This is also the case with the FOI Ordinance that does not prescribe any punishments for government officials who refuse to honour information requests forwarded to them. But it does appoint Federal Ombudsman as appellate authority who can hear appeals filed by individuals. The law says that any person who destroys a record, which was the subject of a request or of a complaint, with the intention of preventing its disclosure under this ordinance, commits an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, a fine or both. But, at the same time, the ordinance prescribes a fine of up to Rs 10,000 for those whose complaints are declared malicious or vexatious by the ombudsman. This is quite a big deterrent for the citizens who are hardly in a position to prove this claim. Parties to various consultations over the issue suggest that instead of Federal Ombudsman a dedicated authority should be constituted to exclusively hear appeals against violations of this law. Their point is that Federal Ombudsman is already burdened with loads of work and entrusting this responsibility is bound to increase it further. In this respect, the Indian model has a lot to offer and must be followed here to create fear among defiant public servants. The practice there is that the Central or State Information Officer exclusively hears final appeals against public information officers who are unable to satisfy those making information requests to them. These appellate authorities can award penalties as well as recommend disciplinary action against the officer at fault under the country's applicable service rules. Section 20 of India's Right to Information Act 2005 states that where a public information officer has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application, has not furnished information within time limits, or in a malafide way denied the request or knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information subject to a request or obstructed the process, a penalty of Rs 250 will be imposed until the application is received or information furnished. Total penalty, however, cannot exceed Rs 25,000 to be paid by the officer from his own pocket. Similar powers to the apellate authority in Pakistan can make the law effective to a great extent. -- Shahzada Irfan 'Changes and amendments can be made at all stages of legislation' -- Sherry Rehman, Federal Minister for Information & Broadcasting; Central Information Secretary, Pakistan Peoples Party By
Nadeem Iqbal The News on Sunday: Talking to journalists in Multan, on May 4, 2008, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani spoke of lacunas in the Freedom of Information law and said that the 2002 law would be improved. Could you tell us what lacunas have been identified by the government and as to when is the law going to be improved? Sherry Rehman: The FOI
Ordinance 2002 is flawed, both in terms of concept and content. Rather The PPP government is committed to repeal the Ordinance for its flawed content. The Ministry of Information has drafted a Freedom of Information Bill after extensive consultation with stakeholders. This Draft Bill has been sent to the Cabinet Division and all four provincial governments for their views. This is a Ministry's Draft, and needs the approval of the cabinet. Changes and amendments can continue to be made at all stages of the legislation as this is not an ordinance. TNS: Not only are there too many exemptions in the law for not releasing the requested information but there are also too many discretionary powers with the designated officer under which they can deny access to information. Is there any plan to reduce these powers in the proposed bill? SR: The Draft Freedom of Information Bill 2008 is based on the premise that the right to know is a fundamental constitutional right, which must be promoted. The Draft Bill follows an internationally accepted model of minimal exemptions. These are only limited to areas of international relations, disclosures harmful to law enforcement and the fulfilment of government obligations in certain commercial and economic affairs. The Draft Bill envisages the designated officer as a public servant who is duty bound to furnish all applications seeking information and record and to convey the reason for turning down any requests. There is also a provision for certifying all information as correct and factual, signed by the designated official. TNS: From a journalist's perspective, under the FOI law a minimum of 21 days for giving the requested information is too long. Is there any word going around in the ministry to reduce the number of days? SR: We agree that 21 days to furnish an application is too long a period of time. We are considering reducing it to 14 days. TNS: How, in your view, have the ministries performed in divulging information under the 'to-be-deleted' law? Have they computerised their record? Was there really any system to monitor the effective implementation of the law? SR: The Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002, for all its flaws, could never promote information sharing. It was more of an attempt at the protection of the official culture of secrecy. This is why our government is keen on speeding up the FOI legislation as it is a key to transparent and open governance. Facilitating availability of record is a crucial component of the Draft Bill. We have made provisions for all public records to be made available at a reasonable price at an adequate number of outlets. Similarly, each public body is obliged to computerise all record covered by the Act. The Draft Bill also binds the federal government to maintain a website listing updated rules, application forms and the names and addresses of the designated officials. TNS: Is there any data compiled to know how many people have benefited from the law to date? SR: All applications forwarded under the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 are being entertained by the Cabinet Division. They can give you the figures on applications received and responded to during all these years. TNS: In a ministry, the information officer either does not have access to information or is not empowered/authorised to release it. Comment. SR: The Draft Act is based on the very premise that people are the real sovereigns who have the right of access to all public records. The information officer being the custodian of public records and documents is empowered and duty bound to release information to the public. The Draft Act even goes on to exempt any information being given out by any officer under good faith from the Official Secrets Act 1923. Without legal access, journalists cannot effectively scrutinise government action; they are condemned to rely on 'leaked' documents, second-hand information or even rumours, laying themselves open to defamation suits or other legal threats along the way By Aoun Sahi PML-Q leaders can't stop
attributing the most liberal laws for media in Pakistan to the Musharraf "The process is tedious and it takes you at least 21 days," says Asim Shahzad, reporter of a Lahore-based national Urdu daily. "You are required to state your purpose and then there are dozens of exemptions in the law. In most cases, the reporter ends up with little or no information. "There is no punishment in the ordinance for officers who cause you delay or reject your requests," he declares. Asim believes that a majority of government officers themselves don't know if such a law exists in Pakistan, whereas those who do discourage its usage." Lack of legal access to information allows a government to strategically control the flow of information in favour of friendly media organisations and punish those that are critical of its policies. But, in democratic traditions, access to government-held information and investigative journalism is part of media's modus operandi. They use such legislation to unearth very important scandals. In UK, the Freedom of Information Act was promulgated in 2005, but even during the first year of its operation hundreds of disclosures such as vital health and safety scandals, government blunders and extreme security measures were brought to the fore. For instance, on March 4, 2005, Financial Times revealed that the US paid millions of dollars to Iraqi opposition leaders for intelligence on Saddam Hussein's regime that was later denounced as flawed information. The previously confidential UK foreign Office Paper's disclosure was forced through the FOI act. According to the paper, the Iraqi National Congress received approximately $4 million per year. Without legal access, journalists cannot effectively scrutinise government action; they are condemned to rely on 'leaked' documents, second-hand information or even rumours, laying themselves open to defamation suits or other legal threats along the way. Journalists must rely on reliable sources and information guaranteed by the freedom of information legislation to dig stories of public interest, but the media folk in Pakistan believe that they are doing well without using such laws. Ansar Abbasi, a leading investigative reporter, tells TNS that he could never use the law to obtain information. "Journalists can only get information through 'sources' in Pakistan. Yet our standard of reporting is not bad, if you compare it to that in foreign countries where such laws have not only existed but are also observed. "The media owners and editors demand at least one exclusive story every second or third day. So, how can you depend on a law that does not guarantee you information, not even after the period of 21 days?" According to Ansar, such laws by the Musharraf government were not meant for implementation; they were only foisted upon the government by world donor agencies. Mukhtar Ahmad Ali, Executive Director, Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives, an NGO that promotes the freedom of information ordinance, rejects the belief that the law is useless. "No doubt, there are lacunas, but the journalists can use the law to get certified information on government functionaries regarding expenditure, permits and licences." He says that in countries where such laws are being used successfully by the journalists, there is a time period of 14 to 30 days during which the required information can be got. "We also need to develop a culture of true investigative journalism. For that purpose, the media owners will have to give more time to their reporters (to dig stories)." Mukhtar stresses the fact that the right to information is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as inclusive of the right to information. It is, however, a pity that in most government departments, the officers should not be aware of the related laws. The result is that they are not able to facilitate those who requested for access to information. "The government officers and departments should understand that by proactively sharing information, they can actually clear out misperceptions and rumours, and build their reputation and credibility." In this regard, a competition was announced in December last year, in which a good amount of money was to be awarded to journalists who dug stories using the FOI ordinance. "So far, we've received eight entries," he reveals, "which is not bad, as it means that the journalists are ready to use the law as a tool of reporting." Media folk and senior journalists maintain that the people responsible for making or shaping such laws do not know the requirement of their job. "The FOI law was made by bureaucracy which has traditionally never let things become easy for the people," says Mazhar Abbas, a senior journalist and general secretary of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PUFJ). "For a journalist, secrecy and timing are very important," he continues, "Journalism is a race against time. Here you cannot afford to waste a month sitting on a news story because you couldn't access the information. You are also concerned about your 'scoop' not going out. "The law should be amended in consultation with the various media organisations and a 'one-window operation' should be introduced where the journalists can get the required information," he suggests.
|
|
access to information becomes a key factor in enriching the process of
public participation in policy matters. Only an informed citizenry can
effectively take part in policy formulation exercises on issues that will
affect their lives. This promotes accountability, which is an important
part of protecting and advancing the public interest. In a way, access to
information creates political space for the governed and enables them to
engage in the governance and democratic process in ways that are far
beyond the confines of casting a vote once every five years. The
by-products of a free flow of information are an open society and the
possibility to maintain accountability of those who exercise public power.
than sharing it with the masses. In a way, they have worked out a means to
perpetuate the traditions of the colonial rule that saw enactment of laws
like the Official Secrets Act.
than facilitating access to information, it has been serving as a vehicle
to deny information. The document makes no reference to the peopleís
fundamental right to information as provided in the constitution. It
carries an extraordinarily large area of exemptions, phrased in general
terms. The definition of public records is diluted, while the Ordinance
only extends to the federal records, ignoring the provincial and local
ones. Not surprisingly, the right to know has been made subject to
entitlements and government provisions. Even the right to appeal against
refusal to provide information has been limited to instances of applicantís
entitlement. The most glaring anomaly is that the destruction of public
record in an unauthorised manner before and after the filing of a
complaint has not been made an offence under the Ordinance.
regime. One such law is the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 that
enables not only journalists but also the general public to have access to
information. However, six years since its promulgation, the efficacy of
the law is still in question. Talk to the journalists and you realise that
a majority of them do not know much about the ordinance. Those who do,
complain of the whole process of obtaining information as cumbersome and
ineffective.