Information Commissioner Ahid Rasheed has hit back at Attorney General (AG) Ahmed Usham following claims that the Right to Information (RTI) Act is being "abused."
In a post on social media X, Ahid stated there is no evidence to suggest that any party is abusing the RTI Act.
"We have seen no evidence of systemic abuse of the RTI Act by requestors. Vexatious requests may exist in isolated instances - but they are not a trend. Mute refusals (where public authorities simply do not respond to RTI requests) are far more prevalent than vexatious requests," he wrote.
Ahid further noted that no government ministry has yet fulfilled its obligation to proactively disclose information as mandated by law.
"And no government ministry has yet fully complied with proactive disclosure obligations under the law. I invite the Attorney General to engage with our data. Check our annual reports and the implementation assessment. Strengthening RTI Compliance benefits everyone - including public authorities," he added.
The Information Commissioner’s rebuttal follows comments Usham made during a press conference at the President’s Office yesterday, in response to a journalist's question.
Usham acknowledged that the Act was created for an important purpose and emphasised that providing information to those who utilise the law "in good faith" remains a priority.
"However, what we are seeing very often, especially recently, is that the RTI Act is being heavily abused," Usham said.
Usham noted that such misuse of the RTI Act forces government agencies to dedicate an excessive amount of time to processing requests. He attributed this burden to the "activities" carried out through the Act, though he did not provide further details.
According to statistics released by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICOM) for last year, the majority of the 712 complaints filed—specifically 487 cases—pertained to a total lack of response from state institutions.
The President’s Office remains one of the institutions with the highest number of complaints against it. In addition to failing to respond to numerous requests, the office has also faced criticism for delaying the release of information even after being ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner.
