Right to information: Status of implementation

Shaheen Anam

gettyimages

AS we all know, the Right to Information Act 2009 was passed in the first session of Parliament on March 29, 2009. It was a ground-breaking decision on the part of the present government and paved the way for all citizen to get information from public authority as a right.

The rationale for the law is clearly stated in the preamble “The right to information shall ensure that transparency and accountability in all public, autonomous and statutory organisations and in private organisations run on government or foreign funding shall increase, corruption shall decrease and good governance shall be established. It is expedient and necessary to make provisions for ensuring transparency and accountability.”

However, we also know that mere enactment of a law does not by any means ensure its implementation. The government has taken the first step by setting up the Information Commission. As per law a 3 member Information Commission was set up in July 2009, and with this the RTI Act 2009 became officially functional. The law gives a detailed description about the roles and responsibilities of the information commission. The foremost principle of which is the full independence of the commission to arbitrate on behalf of information seeker if and when information is denied. As the commission is yet to receive appeals, only time will tell how independently it will be able to act when information will be requested on touchy matters for example influential elements' involvement in tender manipulation, government officials' permission for infrastructure building flouting existing laws or corruption within high profile and powerful public institutions.

It must be clearly understood that the concept of right to Information is new for us. It will not be easy for any of us, government or non-government to give out information easily when requested. First and foremost, everyone will have to come out of the culture of secrecy that has prevailed for so long. Any body in position of power, government or otherwise has used information either to oppress or for their own advantage. However, one thing is clear that the enactment of the RTI law gives us an opportunity as a nation to work towards a more open and transparent society.

The other challenge in implementation is the more operational one. The state of record management within government and non-governmental organizations is such that it will be difficult to respond to information request even with the best of intentions. Moreover there are other challenges such as lack of enough personnel, skills and awareness that such a law exists. A nation wide campaign is required to publicise the law in simple language and its benefits to people thereby creating a demand for implementation.

As someone who has been in the RTI movement from the beginning, I believe that people should start to use the law, not in irresponsible ways or to embarrass officials but use the law by seeking information that is essential to their lives or livelihood or to be informed as to how the state is using public funds. Unless people request information we will not know whether public authority is serious about giving out information. As per law, the entire process has to be completed within 210 days, which includes request for information from designated officials, high officials and arbitration from the Information Commission. Unless we see the entire process roll out we will not know of its effectiveness and public authorities sincerity towards it.

Right to Information or Freedom of Information law has been enacted in 75 countries so far. The status of implementation varies from country to country. The law has been best used where civil society has been involved in mass movement to create demand and public authority has been responsive to this demand. Below are some such examples from some countries Pakistan

The present Freedom of Information Act was enacted through a Presidential Ordinance under a military government, in September 2002. the present elected government has not placed it in parliament for its enactment as law.

However civil society groups continue to try to use the ordinance to promote transparency in public institutions.

Centre for Peace and Development Initiative (CPDI) Pakistan has been using the existing law to unearth incidents of corruption and maladministration in public offices. They asked the

Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights, the following questions.

Certified copy of the list containing the names and addresses of lawyers hired by them to represent Federal Government/ Federation in Supreme Court of Pakistan from October 01, 2002 to March 20, 2008.

Certified information about the total amount paid by the same Ministry as fee or in other heads to the lawyers who represented Federal Government/ Federation in Supreme Court of Pakistan during the same tenure.

Ministry denied the information request, saying it would open a 'Pandora box'. But CPDI remains undeterred and brings this to the notice of public. The media takes it up and publicises such initiatives.

India
The Right to Information was approved by the Parliament in May 2005 and signed by the President in June 2005. The Act came into force in October 2005. The RTI movement in India has resulted in massive exposing of corruption of public funds and getting entitlements for the poor.

A below Poverty Line (BPL) resident of Rangaru village in Rajkot district, Ratnaji secured documents using the Right to Information (RTI) to expose the degree of corruption prevalent in the village. The documents showed that many works registered as completed in the papers were actually never taken up and remain incomplete.

Having official details in their hands, the villagers have launched a movement to force babus to complete the works. It is one of many examples where RTI applications have made government authorities act in several parts of the country.

Mexico
Mexico has set a new international standard for transparency legislation with the creation of a Federal Access to Information Institute (IFAI), charged with implementing and overseeing the law at the national level and Infomex, a website that allows users to file access to information requests electronically to federal and local government bodies.

Environmental groups in Mexico, from the southern state of Chiapas to Coahuila on US border, are actively using access to information laws to directly impact ecological policies. Their work has shed light on the controversial La Parota Dam project in the state of Guerrero and uncovered irregularities in the administration of water services in the city of Saltillo.

The US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has been able to get information relating to the presence of the pollutant perchlorate (a key ingredient of rocket fuel) in water basins in practically every state in US (states bordering Mexico) there is alarming evidence about the magnitude of this problem and its impact on public health.

I will end this article by citing a case where a concerned citizen used the RTI law in Bangladesh to ensure rightful entitlement for the poorest.

Md. Rafiqul Islam is an inhabitant of ward no 3 in Lemshikhali Union of Kutubdia Upazila under the district of Cox's bazar. He participated in two training sessions on how RTI can be sued to benefit people.

In November, 2009 Rafiqul Islam came to know that, of government plan to distribute rice to the poor in Lemshikhali Union under the VGF (Vulnerable Group Feeding) project. He wanted to know from the PIO (Project Implementation Officer) of Kutubdia how much rice was allocated for each person. When the assigned PIO was reluctant to give this information Rafiqul told him that is aware of the “Right to Information law 2009” and it is the duty of the PIO to give the correct information. PIO then informed him that per head 10 kg rice is allocated for a total of 2,725 poor people.

On the day of distribution people learnt from the Chairman that only 7 kg rice will be provided for each person. Rafiqul Islam informed every one that the actual allocation is 10 kg whereas the Chairman was distributing 7 kg. This information created mass awareness and people demanded the full quantity of rice. The UP Chairman was taken aback and argued that it is not possible for him to give them full quantity due to carrying costs and other expenses.

Finally, in face of protests by hundreds of people the Chairman was compelled to distribute 9.5 kg rice per head.
................................................
Shaheen Anam is Executive Director of Manusher Jonno Foundation.

© thedailystar.net, 2010. All Rights Reserved