Access to info: No protection in new law for whistle blowers
The bill is set for passage on Thursday.
The bill is set for passage on Thursday. PHOTO: FILE
LAHORE:
The Right to Information Bill (RTI) introduced in the provincial Assembly on Wednesday carries no provisions to protect whistle blowers.
The PA resumed session at 11:43am under acting speaker Sardar Sher Khan Gorchani.
Law Minister Rana Sanallah moved for the consideration and passage of the RTI Bill 2013. A lively discussion followed. The bill is set for passage on Thursday (today).
The crux of the bill is the establishment of a Punjab Information Commission. It would be responsible for resolving inconsistencies in the application of the law, rules and regulations. The commission will be authorised to hold inquiries on its own, or following complaints. Decisions will normally be taken within 30 days of receipt of a complaint. They will be taken within 60 days in remaining cases and reason for delay recorded in writing. The commission will be empowered to impose a fine on ant public information officer (PIO).
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s Ayesha Javed, who was part of the committee that netted it, told The Express Tribune that the bill did not guarantee protection to whistle blowers.
A similar law passed in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provides the protection. “My view point on the matter was not entertained in the committee,” she said.
According to the bill, certain information may only be released 50 years after the passage of the bill, she said. The bill passed in KPK specifies 30 years, “I had suggested 20 years but that also wasn’t considered,” she said.
The RTI’s website should have links to websites of all departments but the bill is silent on the matter, she said.
She said terms like ‘national interest’ and ‘third party’ were not clearly defined. She said there were many exceptions in the bill that might allow departments to withhold requested information. These include information regarding national security, health, safety, legitimate privacy, legitimate commercial interests, the legally privileged protection of the government regarding certain policies, as well as several other exceptions that boggled one’s mind, she said.
The bill does not specify the procedure for appointing a PIO and the focal person.
“The bill is good in that it allows the scrutiny of public bodies, but it needs more work,” she said.
The KPK bill
PTI’s Dr Nausheen Hamid compared the bill to one passed by the KPK, but the law minister rejected both the comparison and her proposals.
Hamid said under the bill, the PIC would consist of ‘not more than three information commissioners’. That allows the government to get away with appointing just one, she said. She said it also gave the chief minister power to appoint information commissioners (ICs) without consulting other stakeholders.
On the other hand, KPK’s information commission will have four members, a retired judge appointed by the Peshawar High Court chief justice, a senior lawyer nominated by the Bar Council and a civil society representative appointed by the Human Rights Commission. The KPK government will only appoint the chief information commissioner, she said.
Hamid said that the bill also did not elaborate on the commissioners’ perks and privileges.
On the other hand, the KPK bill states that the perks enjoyed by the ICs would be the same as those enjoyed by High Court judges.
She said the proposed PIC was not authorised to recommend changes in departmental rules to bring them in line with Article 19-A of the Constitution of Pakistan (Right to Information).
More importantly, she said, the bill does not guarantee protection to whistle blowers, unlike the KPK bill.
Hamid said that the mechanism to penalise civil servants for blocking information and disobeying the commission’s directives had also been left at the discretion of the bureaucracy.
The KPK bill specifies, unlike the Punjab law, that the procedure for the removal of information commissioners will be the same as that of a High Court judge.
Proposals
Hamid suggested that the PIO’s name, email address and postal address should be circulated on the media and the law should also provide for an advisory committee to the PIC.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 12th, 2013.
The Right to Information Bill (RTI) introduced in the provincial Assembly on Wednesday carries no provisions to protect whistle blowers.
The PA resumed session at 11:43am under acting speaker Sardar Sher Khan Gorchani.
Law Minister Rana Sanallah moved for the consideration and passage of the RTI Bill 2013. A lively discussion followed. The bill is set for passage on Thursday (today).
The crux of the bill is the establishment of a Punjab Information Commission. It would be responsible for resolving inconsistencies in the application of the law, rules and regulations. The commission will be authorised to hold inquiries on its own, or following complaints. Decisions will normally be taken within 30 days of receipt of a complaint. They will be taken within 60 days in remaining cases and reason for delay recorded in writing. The commission will be empowered to impose a fine on ant public information officer (PIO).
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s Ayesha Javed, who was part of the committee that netted it, told The Express Tribune that the bill did not guarantee protection to whistle blowers.
A similar law passed in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provides the protection. “My view point on the matter was not entertained in the committee,” she said.
According to the bill, certain information may only be released 50 years after the passage of the bill, she said. The bill passed in KPK specifies 30 years, “I had suggested 20 years but that also wasn’t considered,” she said.
The RTI’s website should have links to websites of all departments but the bill is silent on the matter, she said.
She said terms like ‘national interest’ and ‘third party’ were not clearly defined. She said there were many exceptions in the bill that might allow departments to withhold requested information. These include information regarding national security, health, safety, legitimate privacy, legitimate commercial interests, the legally privileged protection of the government regarding certain policies, as well as several other exceptions that boggled one’s mind, she said.
The bill does not specify the procedure for appointing a PIO and the focal person.
“The bill is good in that it allows the scrutiny of public bodies, but it needs more work,” she said.
The KPK bill
PTI’s Dr Nausheen Hamid compared the bill to one passed by the KPK, but the law minister rejected both the comparison and her proposals.
Hamid said under the bill, the PIC would consist of ‘not more than three information commissioners’. That allows the government to get away with appointing just one, she said. She said it also gave the chief minister power to appoint information commissioners (ICs) without consulting other stakeholders.
On the other hand, KPK’s information commission will have four members, a retired judge appointed by the Peshawar High Court chief justice, a senior lawyer nominated by the Bar Council and a civil society representative appointed by the Human Rights Commission. The KPK government will only appoint the chief information commissioner, she said.
Hamid said that the bill also did not elaborate on the commissioners’ perks and privileges.
On the other hand, the KPK bill states that the perks enjoyed by the ICs would be the same as those enjoyed by High Court judges.
She said the proposed PIC was not authorised to recommend changes in departmental rules to bring them in line with Article 19-A of the Constitution of Pakistan (Right to Information).
More importantly, she said, the bill does not guarantee protection to whistle blowers, unlike the KPK bill.
Hamid said that the mechanism to penalise civil servants for blocking information and disobeying the commission’s directives had also been left at the discretion of the bureaucracy.
The KPK bill specifies, unlike the Punjab law, that the procedure for the removal of information commissioners will be the same as that of a High Court judge.
Proposals
Hamid suggested that the PIO’s name, email address and postal address should be circulated on the media and the law should also provide for an advisory committee to the PIC.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 12th, 2013.