Nothing justifies the two-year vacancy at the Information Commission

RTI enthusiasts of the country had fervently hoped that the three Information Commissioners, whose posts have remained vacant for over two years, would finally be appointed before this year’s International Right to Know Day. They were disappointed and unsure why. The continued absence of the Commissioners inevitably raises questions about how seriously the government takes implementation of the Right to Information Act.

But there is another way of looking at these vacancies. What might citizens have achieved during these two years if the Information Commission had been fully functional? How many opportunities for greater transparency and accountability may have been lost? We need not look abroad for the answer. Our own RTI columns over the years have recorded cases demonstrating precisely what a functioning Information Commission can do for ordinary citizens.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Take the case of journalist Arup Roy of Savar. He sought information from Dhankora Union Parishad in Manikganj about money received under the Local Government Support Project and other public programmes and how it had been spent. Neither his RTI application nor his subsequent appeal produced a response. He therefore complained to the Information Commission. The Commission directed the designated officer to provide the information within a fixed period. It also fined the officer Tk 3,000 for impeding the free flow of information and imposed another Tk 3,000 fine on the chairman of the Union Parishad for failing to respect the law. Without the Commission, the matter would probably have ended when the application and appeal were ignored. Its intervention turned an unanswered request into an enforceable right.

Another case concerned Hasanuzzaman of Rajshahi, who sought information from the Baghmara social welfare office about government programmes for disabled and disadvantaged people, including stipends for disabled students, assistance for burn victims, and information about children in an orphanage. His application produced no information. Even after the District Social Welfare Office directed the designated officer to provide it, nothing happened. Hasanuzzaman then approached the Information Commission. Following two hearings, the Commission ordered the information to be supplied within seven days and directed the responsible official to pay him Tk 1,800 as compensation under the RTI Act. Here, a citizen sought information about benefits intended for some of society’s most vulnerable members. The Commission’s intervention finally gave effect to his legal right.

A third example is perhaps even more telling. RTI activist Mominul Sarkar of Taraganj, Rangpur sought information concerning the administration of Waqf property following allegations of corruption. He received no response and appealed to the Waqf administrator in Dhaka. He was then told that the requested information was not preserved. Mominul complained to the Information Commission. After two hearings, during which he also complained of harassment for seeking the information, the Commission directed the designated officer to locate and provide the remaining information. It also ordered departmental disciplinary action against the officer for initially refusing to receive the RTI application and against another official who improperly handled the appeal.

These were not spectacular national events. They involved a union parishad, social-welfare programmes and Waqf property. But that is precisely their importance. They show how an Information Commission can make a difference in the everyday relationship between citizen and state.

Another case involved Khairul Islam of Taraganj, who sought information concerning alleged irregularities involving fixed-deposit accounts of employees of a local Bangladesh Rural Development Board office. The designated officer refused disclosure, citing an exemption under the RTI Act. Khairul appealed but received the same answer. He complained to the Information Commission, which initially agreed with the public authority. Khairul persisted, arguing that another provision of the Act overrode the exemption because the matter concerned allegations of corruption and he possessed evidence supporting the claim. The Commission reconsidered the matter and eventually decided in favour of disclosure.

This case illustrates particularly well why the Commission matters. RTI is not merely about submitting applications. Disputes inevitably arise over exemptions, privacy, public interest, corruption, and interpretation of the law. Citizens therefore need an independent body that can decide whether information should be disclosed. Contrast these cases with the situation of the past two years. Citizens have continued to use the RTI Act, sometimes with impressive results. Farmers have sought information about agricultural services, patients about hospitals and medicines, and communities about roads, land, electricity, environmental pollution, and public expenditure. But when public authorities refuse information, and the normal appeal process fails, citizens have nowhere within the RTI system to go. That is the real cost of the vacant posts.

How many present-day equivalents of Arup Roy, Hasanuzzaman, Mominul Sarkar or Khairul Islam have reached the end of the appeal process during these two years and simply had to stop? How many unanswered questions about public money, social benefits, procurement, land, health, or local administration might have been pursued further had a functioning Commission been there to hear them?

We cannot know. What we do know is what happened when Commissioners were there. Information was ordered to be disclosed. Officials were held responsible for ignoring the law. Fines were imposed. Compensation was awarded. Disciplinary proceedings were directed. Not perhaps in all deserving cases, but in quite a few. And, perhaps most importantly, ordinary citizens learnt that when a public authority refused to answer them, the law provided somewhere else to turn.

The appointment of the three Information Commissioners is therefore not simply an administrative matter or the filling of three vacant posts. It is about restoring the institution that gives practical meaning to a citizen’s right to challenge official secrecy. On this International Right to Know Day, our own experience has already shown us what a functioning Information Commission can achieve. We need look no further for proof. If the right to know is to become the power to act, citizens must once again have an Information Commission capable of standing behind that right.

Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are chairman and deputy director of RTI, respectively, at Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.