RTI – The second view

By Naeem Sadiq

While the first view related to a specific incident, of how EOBI used the 47-F missile (where F stands for Fraud) to deceive the Information Commission and to deprive an applicant of his right to information, the second view relates to how can reforms and improvements be brought about in the very processes that provide information to Pakistani citizens.

The information provision mechanisms ( where info is asked by citizens, provided by public bodies and enabled by Information Commissions) have deteriorated over the years. I believe that Civil Society members and Honorable Commissioners can work together to reform the above processes – but not without seriously focussing on the following four issues.

1. Begin from home – reform the working of Commissions.

The existing processes of receiving, responding, recording and retrieving information by the Information Commissions are hugely inadequate and require massive upgradation. Dealing extensively with all Information Commissions, I can vouch that an ordinary grocery store or a book shop in a developed country or even the Daewoo Bus service of Pakistan have a far more efficient response, record and retrieval system than the top statutory bodies of Pakistan called Information Commissions. It is unbelievable that some Information Commissions have NO email system, some will simply not reply, some will lose your cases while some will give wrong facts, references or numbers half of the time.

What does it take to fix these matters? It takes understanding, it takes will to improve and it takes willingness to say good bye to the colonial filing system. The current system is bureaucratic and ‘clerk dependent’. The Information Commissioners have opted to keep themselves aloof and are hesitant to place their personal email addresses on the website. In the entire developed world an RTI response will come directly from the Commissioner him / her self and not from the clerk. While most government departments sublet the ‘thinking’ to the clerks, the same cannot be done by the Information Commissions. Unless the Commissioners directly read and respond to emails of applicants, they will remain disconnected with what is really going on. Recall the earlier Information Commissioners at PIC who always directly responded to the applicants.

2. Upgrade your knowledge to differentiate between information and irrelevance.

Increasingly the public bodies have begun to evade or to provide false information or to come out with imaginary excuses (47-F is just one of the numerous master pieces that can be quoted) or simply provide irrelevant data. One can easily see that the Information Commissions are at a loss to find if the information was in fact provided or not. Thus begins a process of Information Sharing with an applicant. But why do this “Takalluf”, if the Information Commission does not listen to or understand what the applicant is saying and makes arbitrary and incorrect decisions on the basis of its own limited knowledge. Thus dozens of cases were closed even where the public body did not provide anything except excuses and falsehood. There are many accomplished and experienced individuals on this forum whose services could be sought to provide training sessions to each information commission.

3. Who is the customer – public body or the applicant?

The Information Commissions appear to be in an indecent haste to appease public bodies by unilaterally closing the cases, even when 47-F type frivolous and fake excuses are offered by them. How come the Commissions are never in a hurry to appease applicants (the real customers), by ensuring that applicants do receive the requested information. There is no glory in number of cases closed. There is however glory in number of cases where the requested information was truly provided. Even if the applicant’s view is finally rejected for better reasons, it ought to be asked for and recorded before hurriedly closing a case and falling back on an incorrect argument – “now that we have closed the case we cannot open it”. The first sign of progress will be when the Commissions shall reopen all such unilaterally and incorrectly closed cases and seek genuine understanding from applicants on what exact information was not provided.

4. In majority of cases, during Hearing Summons, one sees public bodies sending lawyers or unrelated glib talkers to influence the Commissioners with real and fake arguments. (In a case where info was sought on number of illegal encroachments of tents by DHA Karachi , the DHA lawyer said it was a matter of security. Whose security? The Lahore DHA does not permit tents outside homes). The Commission bought this irrelevance and closed the case. Had the Commission asked this reason to be given in writing, perhaps DHA would have hesitated to come out with this fabrication. The Hearing Summons are not supposed to be “MUK- MUKA” sessions. There is ONLY ONE way of providing requested information to an applicant and that is in writing, on a piece of paper or official email. The info provided must be universally verifiable by any one to confirm if the information was actually provided or not.

•• Friends are welcome to add, subtract or refine these observations