Zahid Abdullah

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

— Benjamin Franklin

Access to information is now widely accepted as a fundamental human right. Its first acknowledgement by the world community can be traced back to 1941, when in its very first session, UN adopted resolution 59(1) which stated: ‘Freedom of information is a fundamental human right … the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the UN is consecrated”. What is the logic of attaching importance to people’s access to information to an extent that it is not only regarded as a fundamental human right but it is also identified as a yardstick to measure other freedoms? What is the state of freedom of information in Pakistan? Do we have effective laws ensuring freedom of information in the country, and, more importantly, how does state establish a balance between its legitimate security needs and people’s right to information?

Lack of transparency in public affairs invariably results in poor governance, owing to inability of citizens, civil society groups and public representatives to effectively monitor the performance of public institutions. Therefore, there is close correlation between degree of good governance and the level of access to information enjoyed by the citizens. In other words, when people have better access to information, they can bring about improvement in the functioning of public institutions. For example, if people know the total budget of a dispensary or of a school in their area, they will demand corresponding quality in the services.

Similarly, if they know the total cost to be incurred on the proposed road in their area, they will create immense public pressure on their representatives and officials if the quality is compromised because of the kickbacks. For this to happen, public institutions will have to be made transparent in their functioning. Ironically, the first major effort to this end came in the shape of the freedom of information ordinance (FOI) promulgated by a military ruler. However, this is not the only irony surrounding the state of freedom of information in Pakistan.

The FOI Ordinance 2002 acknowledges our ‘right to know’ but paradoxically a thumping majority of people do not know that their ‘right to know’ has now been acknowledged and they can have access to public records. It is highly unfortunate that even the educated amongst us do not know that cabinet division has designated information officers in all ministries to facilitate people’s access to official records. Similarly, Article 114 (5) and Article 137 of LGO 2001 are aimed at providing greater transparency and encouraging public participation in the functioning of the local government but there is a general lack of awareness about these articles.

Article 114(5) says: “A statement of monthly and annual accounts and such other necessary statements shall be placed at a conspicuous place by the local government concerned for public information”. Similarly Article 137 says “every citizen shall have the right to information about any office of the district government, tehsil municipal administration and union administration”. It further provides that “information about the staffing and performance of the office of a local government during the preceding month shall, as fast as possible, be displayed at a prominent place within the premises of the office for access by citizens”. The awareness or lack of it pertaining to the relevant laws is not the only aspect of the story of freedom of information in Pakistan. The plot thickens and the ironies become even more pronounced when we see the implementation side of these laws.

Exercising powers conferred by section 25 of the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002, on June 18, 2004, the federal government made Freedom of Information rules. The main objective of these rules was to put in place a mechanism through which citizens could have an access to official information. However, there are serious problems in these rules. For instance, under these rules, citizens requesting information have to pay a fee of Rs50 for each request with the entitlement to receive information only up to 10 pages. If the requested information exceeds 10 pages, the requester has to pay an additional fee at the rate of five rupees per page. These fee and photocopying charges seem to be in violation of Article 3 of the ordinance, which explicitly provides that it will be interpreted so as to ‘facilitate and encourage, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information’.

Furthermore, the format given in the rules for information requests requires citizens to describe the purpose of the information requested. In addition, the declaration part of the format requires requesters to declare that the “information obtained would not be used for any purpose other than specified above.” This requirement is against the spirit of the FOI ordinance and amounts to putting additional restriction on citizens’ right to information.

The most serious irony in the FOI ordinance is that it does not override the plethora of existing laws, which actually hampered access to information. There are plenty of these but the one that is frequently misused is the Official Secrets Act of 1923. Given the colonial context in which it was framed, it confers unchecked powers to state functionaries, which are often used for the suppression of freedom of information. This is where the quotation cited in the beginning of this article comes into play. The Official Secrets Act needs to be repealed immediately.

It is time we moved on and stopped hanging on to the crutches of our colonial legacy. We are a free people and we should demonstrate it by creating a balance between freedom of information and our national security needs. Furthermore, the government can give impetus to the process of creating freedom of the information culture in the society by widening the scope of the FOI ordinance. In its present shape, the ordinance excludes several vital areas from access, such as noting on files, minutes and interim orders which are important to find out as to who opposed a certain project on what grounds and who overrode the objections and on what grounds. In a nutshell, if its anomalies are removed, the Freedom of Information Ordinance of 2002 can go a long way in establishing a society wherein free flow of information would enable citizens to make their public institutions and functionaries accountable to them.

The writer works for the Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives in Islamabad. Email: [email protected]
Source: The News
Date:8/17/2006