RTI body gets a taste of its own medicine

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Information Commission (PIC), a body entrusted by law with the assignment of ensuring the citizens’ right to know, is tasting the medicine it has been prescribing for others: to share the information. Now, as it has been asked to share the information about one of its three commissioners, the PIC has started dilly-dallying and on frivolous grounds.

A couple of months ago, Shazia Tanoli, a freelance journalist, wrote to the Ministry of Information using the Right of Access to Information Act 2017 commonly known as RTI law at federal level.

The information she intended to obtain was about a journalist who was appointed information commissioner of PIC by former prime minister Shehbaz Sharif.

While his induction left many tongues wagging as to whether the journalist qualifies for the criteria governing such appointments, Shazia dared to check through the RTI law which is now testing the credibility of the PIC as well. She wrote to the Ministry of Information as well as to the Cabinet Division seeking certified copies of journalist’s educational credentials, his experience certificate and the names of shortlisted candidates considered for the post.

For background, the PIC is composed of three commissioners, according to the Right of Access to Information Act 2017. One of them has to be from amongst the persons qualified to be a judge of a high court. One slot reserved for a person having served in BS-22 or equivalent position and the third should be from civil society having a degree based on sixteen years of education from a recognised institution and experience of not less than 15 years in the field of social science.

The journalist has been appointed in the civil society category. However, questions remain whether the 31-year-old has 16 years of education and fifteen years of experience. Given his age, the answer seems negative, at least, about his experience.

As Shazia did not receive the requested information from the ministries, she went into appeal against them to PIC. In normal circumstances, the PIC might have issued a notice to the departments concerned for not providing the information. But the matter under question constitutes a direct conflict of interest as details sought are about the journalist, one of the information commissioners. Hence, it has declared the appeal inadmissible by raising technical objections which has not been a norm as the PIC tended to be pro-appellant.

The appellant has been asked to submit a certificate that she had not already or concurrently filed any application, complaint or suit before any other forum. The PIC under previous commissioners had never declared any appeal invalid on this ground. Likewise, another issue raised is that the appellant didn’t file the appeal within 30 days after she had not been provided information. Again, this didn’t form a basis of returning appeal in the past.