| |
Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 (Promulgatated by President of Pakistan) , Government of Pakistan, Ministry of law, Human Rights and Parliamentary affairs (Law, Justice and Human Rights Division) F. No. 2(1)/2002-Pub. Islamabad. The 26th October 2002.
|
|
Pakistan adopted on October 26, 2002 the Freedom of Information Ordinance. This law contains 25 provisions and its purpose is to to provide for transparency and freedom of information to ensure that the citizens of Pakistan have improved access to public records and for the purpose to make the Federal Government more accountable to its citizens, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. No requester shall be denied access to any official record other than exemptions as provided in section 15. A public body shall not be required to disclose exempt information and they specifically stated in the provisions of this law. Any citizen of Pakistan may make an application to the designated official in the form as may be prescribed and shall with his application, furnish necessary particulars, pay such fee and at such time as may be prescribed.
|
|
| |
“Justice Initiative access to information monitoring tool: report from a five-country pilot study”, Open Society Justice Initiative, September 2004.
|
|
New access to information laws in many countries provides a strong foundation for transparent public institutions, but cannot ensure open government absent active follow-up. This was the conclusion of a pilot study monitoring freedom of information carried out by the Open Society Justice Initiative in 2003 with partners in five countries. In just over a decade, more than 45 countries worldwide have adopted freedom of information laws. This study shows that, even once a law is adopted, effective implementation remains a major challenge. Conducted in Armenia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Peru and South Africa, the survey marks one of the most comprehensive efforts yet to test the limits of government transparency. It involved the submission of 100 information requests to 18 different public institutions by a range of actors in each country. On average, only 35 percent of requests for information were fulfilled. Many requests not explicitly rejected were simply ignored—in total, 36 percent of requests submitted resulted in tacit or “mute” refusals. Interviews with government officials revealed a number of common obstacles in enforcing FOI laws. These include a lack of political will at senior levels to encourage transparency, inadequate information management, insufficient training of public officials, and an excess of bureaucratic obstacles to timely information release. In some countries it proved near impossible to submit requests for information orally or without filling out an official form. Persons belonging to vulnerable or excluded groups, such as disabled individuals or ethnic minorities, were less likely to receive positive reactions than journalists or NGOs submitting the same requests. A surprise result was that short timeframes for official responses, far from posing an obstacle to information release as some feared, appear to improve the chances of positive reactions. Peru, the country with the highest rating of the five, also permits the least time to officials to respond: seven working days.
|
|
