July 3, 2008

Consumer Rights Commission of Pakistan (CRCP) has expressed serious reservations on the Freedom of Information Bill 2008, which is expected to be tabled in the legislature soon. In its preliminary comments submitted to the Ministry of Information and Ministry of Law, CRCP has observed that the Bill, if enacted in its present form, will not make much difference, as it is not as good as the 2004 FOI Bill. Not only the provision of whistleblower protection has been taken out, but it also fails to introduce any improvement in the institutional mechanism for processing of information requests and complaints.

Failure of the Bill to make a reference to the provincial FOI laws indicates that it has been drafted without a situation analysis of the ground realities. A large number of improvements were obviously needed, but only some of them have been introduced into the Bill. Similarly, the drafters of the Bill appear to be ignorant about the jurisdiction of Federal Ombudsman. The Bill vests powers in the Federal Ombudsman to entertain complaints pertaining to the federal, provincial as well as local government public bodies, whereas the Federal Ombudsman can entertain maladministration complaints dealing with federal public bodies only under President’s Order No. 1 of 1983.

CRCP review concludes that the Bill is somewhat better than the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 and provincial FOI laws, but there is no point in enacting it into an Act of the legislature in its present form because it has very few meaningful improvements. The major difference is that the law will have national jurisdiction by covering public bodies at the federal, provincial, and local level. In addition, improvements in definitions of the terms of ‘public record’ and ‘public body’; additions in the list of public records to be published and made available by public bodies for public access; provision for recording reasons for exclusion and classification of record; disclosure of classified records after 20 years, and reduction of the processing time from 21 days to 14 days are some of the strengths of the Bill, as compared to the existing FOI laws.

Notwithstanding the strengths, some definitions given in the Bill are very restrictive. For instance, the definition of “complainant” includes only a requester or any person acting for and on behalf of a requester. It does not cover legal entities and voluntary associations that might have a legitimate locus standi on public records. Similarly, the definition of ‘public records’ is restrictive in the sense that access to internal working documents (e.g. proposals, for Cabinet decisions, proposals relating to the management of national economy, etc.) is conditional upon implementation of the final decisions. That is to say that internal working documents cannot be requested under the law unless the final decisions based on these documents has been implemented. The noteworthy point is that the 2008 FOI Bill does not provide a better mechanism for processing of information requests and complaint redress.

CRCP has demanded that the Bill should not be enacted in its present form, and must be debated and improved in light of the universal principles of FOI. CRCP has asserted that without the provision of whistleblower protection, the Bill would not be much different than the existing flawed FOI laws.

     

 

 

CRCP Expresses Reservations on FOI Bill 2008