T is an unfortunate paradox that while on paper Pakistan has some of the most impressive right to information laws, their execution is anything but. Institutional inertia and a culture of secrecy are to blame, according to Fafen`s latest policy brief.

It reveals that federal bodies proactively disclose only 42pc of the information they are legally required to share. It is painfully clear that Pakistan`s RTI framework requires more than just well-crafted legislation. Fafen proposes a range of legal reforms from setting strict disclosure timelines to removing ambiguities in exemption clauses. These suggestions have merit. The current system suffers from convenient escape hatches, with Section 7 of the RTI Act providing broad exemptions and ministers wielding discretionary powers to classify records. The problem, however, runs deeper. The Information Commission`s current structure and authority level is problematic on two fronts. First, as Fafen notes, it functions primarily as an appellate body rather than a proactive enforcer of information access, lacking the authority to enforce strict compliance. Second, the commission`s staffing presents a serious conflict of interest. What should be a watchdog institution has become a comfortable retirement home for bureaucrats, transforming oversight positions into cushy post-retirement jobs.

Rather than challenging government departments to comply with RTI obligations, they appear more interested in appeasing officials perhaps in the hope of securing tenure extensions. As a result, citizens` right to information is routinely sidelined.

Fafen is right to call for greater autonomy and financial independence for the commission. However, a more basic reform would be to ensure that at least two of the information commissioners come from civil society rather than government circles. These individuals must be properly trained and committed to transparency, rather than simply filling a bureaucratic seat. Additionally, clear performance metrics should hold commissioners accountable for their role in ensuring public access to information. To bridge the gap between policy and practice, Fafen also advocates for leveraging technology. It proposes the development of an online platform where citizens can submit and track information requests in real-time. This would prove useful in keeping track of which ministries are f ailing to comply with RTI requirements. The stakes are high. In an era where misinformation fuels political polarisation, an effective RTI framework would provide good defence against destabilising narratives.