FAFEN report shows 54% proactive disclosure, leaving large gaps in transparency and accountability
ISLAMABAD:
Public bodies in Sindh are disclosing just over half of the information they are legally required to make public, highlighting persistent gaps in transparency despite the existence of a comprehensive right to information framework, according to a new assessment by the Free and Fair Elections Network (FAFEN).
The latest transparency assessment report reveals that public authorities in the province proactively disclose an average of 54 per cent of the information required under the Sindh Transparency and Right to Information (STRI) Act, 2016.
FAFEN further warns that the deficit leaves significant room for opacity, weak accountability and misinformation.
The assessment is part of FAFEN’s Countering Disinformation through Information campaign, which emphasizes proactive disclosure as a cornerstone of institutional transparency and a safeguard against misinformation and disinformation.
It examined 61 public bodies across Sindh, including 36 Secretariat departments and 25 attached departments, with respect to disclosure obligations outlined in Section 6 of the STRI Act.
Under the law, public bodies must proactively publish information in 14 categories, covering organizational details, public services, legal frameworks, decision-making processes and mechanisms for accessing information.
The Law also requires that such information be updated periodically and be available in accessible formats, including online.
Overall performance varied across institutional levels. Secretariat departments fared relatively better, disclosing an average of 59 percent of the required information, while attached departments lagged behind with an average disclosure rate of 48 percent.
Among the Secretariat departments, the Finance Department, the Investment Department and the Chief Minister’s Secretariat emerged as the most transparent, each disclosing 80 per cent of the mandatory information.
The Department of Information followed with a compliance rate of 73 percent. Among attached departments, the Directorate of Human Rights led with 73 percent compliance, followed by the Bureau of Statistics with 67 percent.
Despite these comparatively stronger performances, the evaluation highlights systemic weaknesses in most public bodies. Almost half of the information required by law remains undisclosed, with compliance particularly poor in areas related to decision-making, financial transparency and the implementation of right-to-information procedures.
Basic organizational information, such as details of roles and duties, was the most commonly disclosed category, published by 95 per cent of public bodies. 95 percent of the evaluated institutions also disclosed information related to public services and service delivery conditions, as well as applicable legal frameworks.
However, compliance fell sharply in governance-related areas. Only 15 percent of public bodies disclosed decision-making processes, while only 10 percent published details of administrative and development decisions. Budget transparency also remained limited, with only 54 percent of public agencies publishing partial or complete budget information.
Disclosure of subsidy and benefit programs was particularly weak: only five percent of public bodies made relevant details public. Likewise, only seven percent revealed information about the recipients of concessions, permits, licenses or authorizations.
The assessment also found that only 14 per cent of public bodies published contact details of Public Information Officers (PIOs), while barely six per cent revealed records of information requests received and actions taken, despite both being mandatory requirements under the STRI Act.
FAFEN urged provincial institutions in Sindh to strengthen proactive disclosure practices, particularly by leveraging digital platforms to ensure timely, accurate and accessible public information.
The organization said it would soon share detailed recommendations aimed at improving enforcement of the STRI Act and addressing persistent transparency gaps identified in the assessment.
