Protecting whistleblowers?
The bill is flawed, and bad bills make poor law
The passing of a bill by a Senate committee on Monday 2nd October at first sight looks like good news. The bill provides a mechanism for public interest disclosures, popularly known as ‘whistleblowing’ regarding alleged corruption and allows protection for those so doing. The minister for law and justice briefed members of the Senate Standing Committee on Law and Justice as to the importance of the bill saying that such legislation would help to eliminate corruption in government departments.
The bill did not get a smooth ride. Opposition lawmakers were in principle supportive of the bill but argued that its jurisdiction should be extended to the protection of whistleblowers in autonomous organisations as well — which could potentially extend it to NGOs national and international and the corporate sector as well. The committee chairman undertook to incorporate the opposition suggestions in the bill, a decision we can do nothing other than support.
Welcome as these developments may be there are caveats. Principal among these lies in the process by which the whistleblower may make disclosure. Although the bill is in line with international conventions relative to corruption, the route by which disclosure may be made is to be via the ‘competent authority’ or the head of the organisation being potentially exposed. Given the extent of corruption in Pakistan across all sectors both public and private, any expectation that any complaint about corruption within is likely to be investigated in an impartial manner is bordering on the ludicrous. Indeed any whistleblower may find themselves swiftly out of the front door — or worse — if they take the chance of pushing a report of corruption up the managerial chain. In that sense the bill is more likely to see whistleblowers silenced rather than supported. Similarly the ‘competent authority’ may itself also be corrupt and the unlucky whistleblower again in trouble. If corruption is to be truly tackled in safety and the whistleblowers given the protection they absolutely will need, then there must be an independent body for them to go to in order to start the process of investigation. The bill is flawed, and bad bills make poor law.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 4th, 2017.
The bill did not get a smooth ride. Opposition lawmakers were in principle supportive of the bill but argued that its jurisdiction should be extended to the protection of whistleblowers in autonomous organisations as well — which could potentially extend it to NGOs national and international and the corporate sector as well. The committee chairman undertook to incorporate the opposition suggestions in the bill, a decision we can do nothing other than support.
Welcome as these developments may be there are caveats. Principal among these lies in the process by which the whistleblower may make disclosure. Although the bill is in line with international conventions relative to corruption, the route by which disclosure may be made is to be via the ‘competent authority’ or the head of the organisation being potentially exposed. Given the extent of corruption in Pakistan across all sectors both public and private, any expectation that any complaint about corruption within is likely to be investigated in an impartial manner is bordering on the ludicrous. Indeed any whistleblower may find themselves swiftly out of the front door — or worse — if they take the chance of pushing a report of corruption up the managerial chain. In that sense the bill is more likely to see whistleblowers silenced rather than supported. Similarly the ‘competent authority’ may itself also be corrupt and the unlucky whistleblower again in trouble. If corruption is to be truly tackled in safety and the whistleblowers given the protection they absolutely will need, then there must be an independent body for them to go to in order to start the process of investigation. The bill is flawed, and bad bills make poor law.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 4th, 2017.