& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Right to information ordinance

The CTG has dealt with a number of policy matters of great national interest. So, there is no justification for it to skip the enactment of the RTI ordinance, as it is committed to restore democracy and wipe out corruption. The RTI is a cardinal factor for good governance, and the whole mechanism of governance in the country has been vitiated owing to lack of it.

A.N.M. Nurul Haque
THE draft of the Right to Information (RTI) Ordinance 2008, prepared by an eight member committee headed by a joint secretary of the information ministry and having a representative from an NGO, Manusher Jonno Foundation, has been placed on the website of the information ministry for public scrutiny.
Academics, intellectuals, journalists, businessmen and civil society members at a discussion held on March II stressed the need for discussing the matter with political players who will ultimately implement the law. The information ministry organised the discussion to have recommendations from
eminent citizens on the draft RTI Ordinance, before giving its final shape.
The draft RTI Ordinance contains 27 articles including one for formation of an information commission, which will have the power to impose a fine of up to Tk 25,000 and recommend punishment as per the service rules if any quarter fails to provide information to citizens in a stipulated time.
Article eight of the draft RTI says that information related to state security, sovereignty, dignity, foreign policy, defence, relations with foreign countries or foreign organisations, commerce or trade interests, technical or scientific interest, income tax, customs and excise duties, executive operations of finan-
cial organisations and disclosures counter to public interest will be exempted.
The list of exemptions is too long. The categories "dignity," "foreign policy" and "relations with foreign countries or foreign organisations" are likely to become a major impediment towards free flow of information.
The people must have the right to know everything, except issues involved with state security. Exemption from disclosure of information counter to "public interest" should be deleted as it goes against the spirit of the ordinance.
According to the draft RTI, the president of the country will appoint a chief information commissioner and two commis-
sioners on recommendation of a search committee headed by a judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, having the cabinet secretary and the chairmen of the Public Service Commission and University Grants Commission as members.
The chairman of the press council should be included in the search committee instead of the UGC chairman. The criteria for selection of chief information commissioner and the commissioners must be laid down in the RTI Ordinance.
The information commission's independence may be hampered because of the budgeting process stipulated in the draft RTI. The information commission must be granted full autonomy to recruit and remove
its staff, and to place its own budget directly to the parliament instead of going through the ministry. Otherwise, the commission will be a toothless one.
The right to information became a fundamental human right with the passing of a law known as the "Freedom of Information Act" by the US Congress in 1966. In 1974, the then Labour government in Britain promised to enact a freedom of information law. But it took more than a quarter century for the law to reach the statute book, and a further four years to come fully into force in 2005.
According to Britain's freedom of information laws, anyone of any nationality, living anywhere in the world, may request information held by more than one hundred thousand public authorities and other designated nongovernmental organisations in Britain and expect an answer within 20 working days, usually free of charge.
Most of the central government departments in Britain are now well geared up with a mass
of easily accessible information already on their websites.
There are, of course, exemptions. Any information relating to national security, most personal data, court records, information subject to parliamentary or legal privilege, and information likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs are subject to an "absolute" exemption that cannot be overridden.
The independent information commission set up by the act has made it clear that aggrieved members of the public can seek enforcement of their "right to know" only through it. It is now considered as a criminal offence in Britain to destroy data for which a valid request has been made under the act.
The civil right groups in Britain are nevertheless worried at the right of the ministerial veto included in the act, which could be used to block any information deemed too sensitive or politically embarrassing to any government.
It is worth mentioning here that in New Zealand, on whose freedom of information legislation Britain's act is closely mod-
elled, the ministerial veto has not been used once in the 18 years since the present system was brought into to force.
Bangladesh is in the list of 12 Commonwealth countries without RTI laws, and with the habit of secrecy that is sapping away the economic lifeblood of the nation. The remaining 42, out of the 54 members of the Commonwealth, either have specific laws guaranteeing access to information or explicit constitutional guarantees.
In Bangladesh, where democratic governments had been in power since 1991, there are some laws, like the Official Secrets Act 1923, still in force that are antithetic to the right of access to information. The RTI Ordinance will, however, have dominance over these laws.
No fewer than 75 countries, including India Pakistan and Nepal, have since introduced the right to information laws under different heads. The people of Bangladesh are longing for RTI law's, and want the caretaker government (CTG) to take effective steps for enacting the laws.
Certainly, the RTI ordinance
bears significance for a country like Bangladesh, where the people are struggling to strike a balance between administrative transparency and accountability and their access to information. The RTI and good governance are intertwined aspects of same factor, i.e. a driving force in democracy.
The successive political governments did not make RTI laws as the vested interest groups had always influenced them with a view to keeping their misdeeds hidden in the dark. The CTG must not miss this historical opportunity to pass the RTI Ordinance within its tenure, to be ratified by the next parliament.
The CTG has dealt with a number of policy matters of great national interest. So, there is no justification for it to skip the enactment of the RTI ordinance, as it is committed to restore democracy and wipe out corruption. The RTI is a cardinal factor for good governance, and the whole mechanism of governance in the country has been vitiated owing to lack of it.
A N M Nurul Haque l$ a columnist of The Daly Star