FAFEN report shows 54% proactive disclosure, leaving major gaps in transparency and accountability
ISLAMABAD:
Public bodies in Sindh disclose 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 on average 54% of the information required by the Sindh Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2016.
FAFEN further warns that this deficit leaves significant room for opacity, weak accountability and disinformation.
The assessment is part of FAFEN’s Countering Disinformation with Information campaign, which emphasizes proactive disclosure as a cornerstone of institutional transparency and as a guarantee against misinformation and disinformation.
It examined 61 public bodies across Sindh, including 36 Secretariat departments and 25 attached departments, with regard to the disclosure obligations outlined in Section 6 of the STRI Act.
Under the law, public bodies are required to proactively publish information in 14 categories, covering organizational details, public services, legal frameworks, decision-making processes and information access mechanisms.
The law also requires that this information be regularly updated and made available in accessible formats, including online.
Overall performance varied across institutional levels. Secretariat departments fare relatively better, disclosing on average 59 percent of the required information, while attached departments lag 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 mandated information.
The Department of Public Information follows with a compliance rate of 73 percent. Among the attached departments, the Directorate of Human Rights tops the list with 73 percent compliance, followed by the Bureau of Statistics with 67 percent.
Despite these comparatively better results, the evaluation highlights systemic weaknesses in most public organizations. Nearly half of the information required by law is still not disclosed, with particularly low compliance in areas related to decision-making, financial transparency and the implementation of right to information procedures.
Basic organizational information – such as details of functions and duties – was the most commonly disclosed category, published by 95 percent of public agencies. Information relating to public services and service delivery conditions, as well as applicable legal frameworks, was also disclosed by 95 percent of the institutions assessed.
However, compliance has fallen sharply in areas related to governance. Only 15 percent of public bodies disclosed their 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 low, with only five percent of public agencies making relevant details public. Likewise, only seven percent disclosed information regarding the beneficiaries of concessions, permits, licenses or authorizations.
The assessment also found that only 14 percent of public agencies published contact information for public information officers (PIOs), while only 6 percent disclosed records of requests for information received and actions taken, despite both of these being mandatory requirements under the STRI Act.
FAFEN urged provincial institutions in Sindh to strengthen proactive disclosure practices, including leveraging digital platforms to ensure timely, accurate and accessible public information.
The organization said it will soon share detailed recommendations to improve enforcement of the STRI Act and address persistent transparency gaps identified in the assessment.
