Monitor on Knowing Your Right to Information | January and February 2016

led by Justice Shams Mehmood delivered a landmark judgment on the petition of

Advocate Waheed Shehzad. While hearing this petition, the High Court ruled that

the President of Pakistan could not hear appeals against the decisions of the

Federal Ombudsman and Federal Tax Ombudsman, whose decisions have been judged

a complaint with the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) against the Federal Board of

Revenue’s (FBR’s) refusal to provide him information under the FOIO

pertaining to action taken on the recommendations issued by the Alternate Dispute

Resolution Committee. However, the FTO’s decision upholding his complaint

and ordering disclosure of the requested records was set aside by the President

Mamnoon Hussain when the FBR filed a representation before him. The petitioner

then filed a petition in front of the Lahore High Court questioning whether

the President had jurisdiction within the FOIO to entertain or decide a representation

(2) of the Ordinance clearly stated that the FTO and the Federal Ombudsman could

“direct” designated officials to disclose requested information.

It further ruled that while the President could overturn the ‘recommendations’

of the FTO or the Federal Ombudsman; his Office did not enjoy the same powers

in relation to ‘directions’ issued by the FTO or the Federal Ombudsman.

The Court also ruled after the introduction of Article 19-A in the Constitution,

the exclusions contained in Section 8 of the FOIO must be “strictly construed”

widely within the stakeholders of Pakistan’s RTI reforms movement, as

it will reduce the time taken for requested information to reach an applicant.

The ruling will also ensure that the FOIO is construed consistently as it grants

the FTO and the Federal Ombudsman is final authority in the hearing of complaints.

of Right to Information Legislation and Implementation in Pakistan, Mr. Nasir

Jamal, Director General (Internal Publicity), Ministry of Information, Broadcasting

and National Heritage announced that the Government of Pakistan had constituted

a Committee to revise Pakistan’s internationally acclaimed Right to Information

Bill in light of the changing security dynamics of the country. He also said

the opinions of civil society organisations would be sought by the Committee

meeting on January 11, comprises senior Members of Parliament and the Federal

Cabinet. The Committee, which is chaired by Mr. Pervaiz Rashid, Minister of

Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage, also includes Mr. Ahsan Iqbal,

Minister of Planning, Development and Reform, Mrs Anusha Rahman Khan Minister

of State for Telecommunication (MNA, PML-N), Mr. Irfan Siddiqui, Special Assistant

to the Prime Minister on National Affairs, and Ms. Marriyum Aurangzeb (MNA,

PML-N). The Committee held its second meeting on January 21, 2016, before which

Article 19-A of the Constitution while seeking transparency in the conduct of

Pakistan (ECP), PTI leader Mr. Aleem Khan had requested access to the ballot

papers cast in the NA-122 by-elections that he contested against Sardar Ayaz

Sadiq, Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan, While Mr. Aleem Khan’s

plea for access to the actual ballot papers cast during the by-elections was

rejected, under the ECP verdict passed on February 01, he was allowed to inspect

the National Database and Registration Authority’s (NADRA’s) records

of transferred votes and inclusion of new voters on the electoral rolls for

a specific time period. This is the first time NADRA has been required to provide

the ECP’s reply on a petition filed by Mr. Tasneem M. Noorani, Chief Election

Commissioner of the PTI, for access to the Commission’s data servers.

Access to the Commission’s servers was once again sought under Article

19-A of the Constitution for the purpose of preparing credible voters lists

for the PTI’s upcoming intra-party elections. The petition was taken up

by a 3-member bench of the apex court led by Justice Mian Saqib Nisar after

responded formally to the petition on February 11, 2016. In its response, the

ECP refused to provide the PTI access to its data servers on account that providing

such access would damage the integrity of their data managements systems. The

ECP also stated that providing access to its servers amounted to an interference

in the performance of its constitutional function of ensuring free and fair

both cases mentioned above serve as important examples of how the Right to Information

information by the Directorate General Public Relations (DGPR), Punjab has been

upheld by the Punjab Information Commission (PIC), which has ordered the DGPR,

Punjab to provide all requested information to the applicant by Febraury 18,

2016, at the latest. A portion of the requested record (i.e. from January 1,

2015 – June 30, 2015) was updated on the DGPR website before lapse of

the February 18 deadline set by the PIC (please see: DGPR

Website). Since then, PILDAT has written to the Director General, DGPR Punjab,

to a month-wise breakdown of the Government of Punjab’s expenditure (between

January 01 and October 20, 2015) on promotional advertisements released through

the DGPR in accordance with the Provincial Advertisement Policy, 2012. The request

was filed at a time when numerous observers had called for increased scrutiny

of the use of funds for government advertisements during the Local Government

Elections season. The first request was addressed to Raja Janagir Anwar, Director

General, DGPR, Punjab, on October 20, 2015, as no Public Information Officer

Upon receiving no response from the DGPR to this request, the applicant submitted

a request for internal review with the Director General on November 20, 2015

and received a reply on January 23, 2016 stating that the requested records

were “strictly classified” under Section 13 (1-b) and (1-d) of Punjab’s

RTI law, which protect information whose disclosure may legitimately harm the

privacy interests of an individual or commercial interests of a public body

or third party. After receiving an unsatisfactory explanation for denial of

the request, the Commission summoned the Director General and the Director (Coordination)

of the DGPR to a hearing on January 28, 2016. The summoned officials were absent

at this hearing, but were present at the second hearing called on February 08,

During this hearing, Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ali, the Information Commissioner hearing

the complaint, rejected the grounds provided by the DGPR for denial of the information

request. He also directed the DGPR to take immediate steps to ensure its full

compliance with the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013,

especially in relation to the automation of records, the proactive disclosure

of information on the number, type and related costs of released advertisements,

the designation of PIOs and the provision of their contact details on notice-boards

Information Commission’s (PIC’s) February 12, 2015 order, has disclosed

records on its annual expenditures upon a citizen’s request (dated September

18, 2014). After resisting disclosure of the requested records for many months,

the Punjab Governor House has now disclosed records of its expenditure for FY

2013-2014 and FY 2014-2015 upon orders of the PIC. However, the disclosed records

do not include information on the Governor House expenditure during the month

Governor House has opened its expenditures up to public scrutiny. The development

is also important as it establishes the PIC as the final authority in deciding

matters of information disclosure even when its decisions go against officials

of promising amendments to the Province’s RTI law. These amendments are

primarily intended to increase the Commission’s powers in enforcing its

decisions on complaints by citizens against the non-provision of information

is in Section 6 of the KP RTI Act. After sub-section (3), two new sub-sections

have been added to ensure that designated officials, i.e. Public Information

Officers, responsible for dealing with public information requests are provided

full support by their departments. Interference by superiors is the main reason

why Public Information Officers are unable to ensure full disclosure of information

at the level of individual government departments. In this regard, the new Section

26 (4) in the proposed Amendment Bill ensures that Heads of public bodies can

now be prosecuted for obstruction (defined in Section 28) in case a Department

or public body fails to release information, upon directives of the Information

Commission. Further amendments to Section 28 (1)(d) guarantee that provision

of false or misleading information upon request is also considered as an offence

under the RTI Act. Finally, insertion of new Section 26 (5) and (6) defines

procedures for collecting fines imposed by the Commission against non-provision

of information by Government Departments and public bodies. Previously, the

Commission lacked any mechanism for collecting such fines, primarily due to

to Information Act was one of the best RTI laws in the world when it was promulgated

in December 2013. A number of controversial amendments inserted into the law

by the Provincial Assembly in June 2015 unfortunately weakened the law. The

new amendments proposed by the Commission, if passed by the Provincial Assembly

of KP, will make the Province’s RTI law even more comprehensive than when

Information and Archives Department, and Secretary, Law Department, Government

of Sindh to discuss progress made on the Province’s draft Right to Information

said that the Bill had only recently  been vetted by the Law Department.

They also said that the Government was now inviting feedback o