Twelve years ago, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) stood as a beacon of progress in Pakistan. By becoming the first province to enact a Right to Information (RTI) law following the landmark 18th Constitutional Amendment, it promised a new era of transparency, where citizens could finally hold their government accountable with the power of facts. Yet, a recent policy brief from the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) paints a sobering picture of how that promise has stalled. Despite being pioneers, the province now finds itself grappling with a system that exists more on paper than in practice. The glowing ambition of the original legislation has been dulled by a reality of weak enforcement, institutional hesitation, and a failure to adapt to the complexities of modern governance.
The heart of the problem lies in the disconnect between legislative intent and institutional compliance. FAFEN’s assessment of 190 provincial public bodies revealed a troubling trend: these institutions are, on average, disclosing only 57% of what the law mandates they make public. This isn’t just a matter of bureaucratic inefficiency; it is a fundamental breakdown of the social contract. When nearly half of the required information remains shielded from public view, the vacuum is quickly filled by rumors, speculation, and misinformation. In today’s digital age, transparency isn’t just a democratic virtue; it is a necessity for public trust. By withholding data, the government is inadvertently stripping itself of the tools needed to combat false narratives and demonstrate its commitment to the people.
The legal framework itself has shown its age, creating loopholes that allow opacity to flourish under the guise of technicalities. One of the most glaring issues identified by the report is the narrow definition of what constitutes a “public body.” Many private organizations and NGOs—entities that thrive on public subsidies, tax concessions, and lucrative government contracts—are currently exempt from the same level of scrutiny applied to state offices. This creates a dangerous shadow sector where public resources are managed without public oversight. When the law fails to follow the money, it creates environments where accountability is effectively rendered impossible, allowing private interests to benefit from the state while remaining untouchable by the citizens they supposedly serve.
Institutional fragility further hobbles the process, particularly regarding the K-P Information Commission. For a law to have teeth, the body responsible for enforcing it must be truly independent and empowered. FAFEN notes that the Commission currently suffers from limited financial and operational autonomy, which leaves it vulnerable to pressure and unable to exert meaningful control over rogue departments. Without the authority to conduct independent inspections of records or issue binding directives on how documentation should be managed, the Commission is often forced to react to problems rather than prevent them. A watchdog that is underfunded and under-resourced will struggle to keep pace, especially when facing institutional inertia or deliberate resistance.
The report highlights that the lack of standardized, machine-readable formats is another silent killer of transparency. In an era where data should be easily searchable and comparable, many provincial departments still operate in a analog way that makes extracting actionable insights nearly impossible. When information is buried in non-standardized reports or obscured by complex, incompatible record-keeping, the “right” to information becomes a burden rather than a tool for the average person. FAFEN correctly argues that unless the definition of “information” is modernized to include digital and machine-readable records, the RTI law will continue to function as a relic of the past, utterly unequipped to meet the technical demands of the current decade.
Moving forward, the path to reform is clear, though it requires genuine political will. FAFEN’s recommendations—expanding the scope of “public bodies,” guaranteeing the Commission’s independence, and mandating digital record-keeping—are not just procedural tweaks, but essential pillars of a functioning democracy. For K-P to reclaim its status as a leader in transparency, it must transition from a culture of gatekeeping to one of proactive disclosure. By embracing these changes, the provincial government has the chance to prove that the 18th Amendment wasn’t just a constitutional formality, but a commitment to an informed citizenry. Without these decisive actions, the RTI law remains a missed opportunity; with them, it can become the powerful engine of accountability it was always meant to be.