When the 'right to know' loses its institutional backbone

Seventeen years ago, Bangladesh took an important step towards recognising that citizens have a right to know. The Right to Information Act was not a sudden achievement; it was the outcome of years of public demand, civil society engagement and a broader struggle for accountable governance.

The story of the right to information in Bangladesh did not begin in 2009. The first formal demand for such a right was raised in 1983 by the Bangladesh Press Council. What followed was more than four decades of advocacy, public demand, institutional effort and capacity building before the Right to Information Act was enacted in 2009.

In those early years, there was a palpable sense that something fundamental was changing. Today, as the Information Commission remains without Commissioners, it is worth asking what happens to a right when the institution responsible for enforcing it can no longer fully perform its role.

Seventeen years of the law—and roughly four decades of work behind it—should not go unnoticed.

From public demand to law

Every year on 28 September, the world observes the International Day for Universal Access to Information. In Bangladesh, the day is an opportunity to reflect on a reform that deserves to be remembered not simply as a piece of legislation, but as the outcome of years of public demand for a more open and accountable state.

The Right to Information Ordinance was promulgated on 20 October 2008. After the national election, Parliament enacted the Right to Information Act on 29 March 2009. The President gave his assent on 5 April, and the Act was gazetted on 6 April. Within 90 days, on 1 July 2009, the Information Commission was constituted.

The story behind those dates is perhaps more important than the dates themselves.

The RTI Act emerged from a broader democratic experience in which citizens had long faced the consequences of limited access to public information. Civil society organisations, journalists, governance practitioners and development partners had spent years building awareness, generating public demand and demonstrating why access to information mattered.

It was, in many ways, a collective achievement.

Building a culture of access

I remember those early years with a particular sense of optimism. From the enactment of the law through around 2012, I was closely involved in RTI awareness and capacity-building work. I was part of training initiatives with grassroots civil society organisations and media professionals and worked closely with the newly established Information Commission. The early years were exceptionally encouraging.

The significance of RTI, however, went beyond the number of applications submitted or the information provided in response. It introduced a different idea into the governance system: public information is not simply the property of public officials; citizens have a legitimate right to seek it.

The law also created a mandate of proactive disclosure. Government institutions began designating information officers, and information about officials, services and institutional responsibilities increasingly became available through government websites. The Information Commission's own records from the early years document training, public awareness programmes, workshops and the development of procedures for implementing the law.

These may sound like routine administrative developments today. At the time, they represented a meaningful change in the relationship between citizens and public institutions.

I also saw how the law opened a new space for journalists. Over the years, journalists have used RTI as one of the tools available to them for obtaining information and supporting investigative reporting.

The limits of implementation

Of course, the journey was never without limitations.

Implementation was uneven. Public awareness remained limited in many places. Proactive disclosure was not always consistent. Civil society continued to point to gaps between the law and its implementation. There were also instances where administrative practices and other legal provisions did not fully reflect the spirit of openness that the RTI framework sought to establish.

But those limitations do not erase what changed.

The RTI framework created designated information officers, established procedures for requesting information, created an independent Information Commission and provided citizens with a formal avenue for complaint and redress. The Commission was established as an independent statutory institution responsible for implementing the law.

When the enforcement mechanism falls silent

And this is where the present situation becomes concerning.

Since September 2024, the Information Commission has been without a Chief Information Commissioner and two Information Commissioners. The Commission's own published list of former commissioners records the end of the previous Chief Information Commissioner's tenure on 5 September 2024 and the last Information Commissioner's tenure ending in January 2025.

The Information Commission is an important part of the enforcement mechanism of the RTI Act. When citizens are denied information or their requests are not properly addressed, the Commission provides an institutional avenue for complaint and redress. The law therefore depends on an institution capable of giving that right practical meaning.

Without that mechanism, the architecture becomes incomplete.

A government website may still list an information officer. An RTI application may still be submitted. A public authority may still have an obligation to disclose information. But what happens when that authority does not respond? Where does a citizen go when a legitimate request for information is ignored?

That is the real concern.

The right needs an institutional voice

Public accountability depends not only on rules and obligations, but also on having an institution where citizens can seek redress when those obligations are not met. If that avenue is weakened, the accountability chain is broken.

On this International Day for Universal Access to Information, therefore, the question Bangladesh should ask is not simply whether we still have a Right to Information Act.

Seventeen years ago, Bangladesh took an important step towards recognising that citizens have a right to know. The challenge now is to ensure that this right continues to have an institutional voice.

The writer, Farhana Afroz, is a Development Worker.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.