Seven Months of Silence: What the KP Sports Directorate’s RTI Evasion Reveals About Governance, Secrecy and Public Money

 

Musarrat Ullah Jan , KikxNow , Digital Creator

In any functioning democracy, the right to information is not a courtesy. It is a mechanism of control. It allows citizens to audit power without occupying office. It forces institutions to justify expenditure, explain decisions and maintain records that can withstand scrutiny. When that mechanism is obstructed, the issue is never procedural. It is structural.

On 4 July 2025, a formal request was submitted to the Public Information Officer of the Directorate of Sports, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa under the KP Right to Information Act 2013. The request was neither complicated nor politically explosive. It asked for data that any organized department should be able to produce within days: the number of CCTV cameras installed at Peshawar Sports Complex, their operational status, installation dates, maintenance costs and vendor details. It also sought information on computers in use at the Directorate, their procurement history, functional status and total expenditure over the past ten years.

Seven months later, there has been no substantive response. This is not delay. This is institutional resistance.Why These Questions Matter

At first glance, CCTV cameras and desktop computers may appear routine administrative assets. They are not. They represent two sensitive governance zones: security infrastructure and procurement spending.

Security infrastructure determines whether public facilities are safe, monitored and accountable. Procurement spending determines whether public funds are used efficiently or diverted through inflated contracts, repeat maintenance cycles and non-functional equipment.

When information about these areas is withheld, suspicion does not arise from activism. It arises from logic.If cameras are fully functional and properly maintained, disclosure strengthens institutional credibility. If procurement has followed due process, documentation should be readily available. If records are accurate, sharing them costs nothing.

Silence, therefore, suggests one of three scenarios: records are poorly maintained, irregularities exist, or the department operates under a culture that treats transparency as a threat rather than an obligation.

One revealing detail exposes the broader dysfunction. During submission, the official email inbox returned a delivery failure notice because storage capacity was full.

This is not a technical footnote. It is a governance indicator. A provincial department responsible for managing public infrastructure and budget allocations could not maintain basic email storage capacity. Yet the same department is expected to manage surveillance systems, digital procurement records and IT infrastructure.

Digital governance is not about purchasing computers. It is about maintaining systems. An email inbox at capacity signals neglect of even the most fundamental operational standards.

When communication channels fail, transparency collapses.

CCTV Systems: Security or Symbolism?

Across public institutions, CCTV installations frequently serve ceremonial purposes. They are installed, photographed, reported and budgeted. What happens afterward is rarely examined.

Common patterns in public sector CCTV projects include:

Initial installation without long-term maintenance planning

Repeated maintenance contracts with minimal oversight

Storage systems that do not archive footage properly

Control rooms that exist but are not consistently staffed

Equipment that becomes non-functional within months

If any of these patterns exist within the Peshawar Sports Complex, the implications extend beyond financial waste. Non-functional surveillance systems create blind spots in public safety. Incidents cannot be verified. Accountability becomes impossible.

If cameras are operational and documented, disclosure would immediately dispel doubt. Continued silence does the opposite.

Unlike physical infrastructure such as stadium renovations or road construction, IT procurement is largely invisible to the public. This makes it structurally vulnerable.

Computers can be purchased in bulk without visible trace. Inventory lists can be incomplete. Equipment can be declared “obsolete” prematurely. Maintenance contracts can be extended without performance evaluation.

When a department is asked to provide a ten-year procurement breakdown and cannot do so within statutory timeframes, it raises questions:

Were purchases aligned with actual operational need?

Were vendors selected through transparent processes?

Are all procured assets physically traceable?

How many systems are currently non-functional, and why?

Without documentation, public money becomes abstract. And abstraction protects misuse.

The KP Right to Information Act 2013 was introduced to create enforceable transparency. It mandates timely disclosure unless specific exemptions apply. None of the requested information falls under national security, privacy or protected categories.

Failure to respond within statutory limits is not administrative oversight. It is non-compliance.

When non-compliance carries no immediate consequence, it becomes normalized. Departments learn that ignoring requests is easier than assembling records. Public Information Officers become gatekeepers rather than facilitators.

Culture of Defensive Governance

The deeper issue is cultural.

Many public institutions operate under defensive governance logic. Information is perceived as leverage. Disclosure is seen as weakening control. Requests are interpreted as confrontational rather than procedural.

This culture produces predictable outcomes:

Delayed responses

Partial disclosures

Technical excuses

Bureaucratic fatigue imposed on applicants

Over time, the objective shifts from compliance to discouragement.

If a journalist, researcher or citizen must spend months pursuing routine data, many will abandon the effort. Institutional opacity survives through exhaustion.

Sports departments occupy a unique space. They are publicly funded but emotionally charged. They symbolize youth development, opportunity and provincial identity.When governance failures surface in such institutions, the psychological impact is amplified. Citizens begin to question not just budgets but fairness. Athletes question allocation of facilities. Coaches question resource distribution.

Trust erodes quietly.

And once eroded, it is difficult to rebuild.

The Cost of Silence

Silence has consequences beyond one RTI application.

It signals to other departments that compliance is optional.

It signals to vendors that scrutiny is weak.

It signals to the public that oversight mechanisms lack enforcement.

Over time, this produces systemic drift. Governance shifts from rule-based to discretion-based. Records become reactive rather than proactive. Transparency becomes a public relations instrument instead of an accountability mechanism.

What Responsible Governance Would Look Like

A responsible institutional response would include:

Immediate acknowledgment and explanation of delay

Complete disclosure of requested records

Publication of CCTV operational audits

Digital inventory of IT assets accessible for oversight

Clear maintenance logs with vendor details

Structural reform to ensure future compliance

 Transparency should not depend on who asks the question. It should be embedded into process.

The Directorate of Sports in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa now faces a clear choice.

It can continue to delay, allowing suspicion to harden into public judgment.

Or it can respond comprehensively, correct procedural gaps and demonstrate that public institutions remain accountable to public law.This case is no longer about cameras or computers. It is about whether statutory rights in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are operational realities or ceremonial promises.

When institutions refuse to answer lawful questions, they weaken not just their own credibility but the authority of the law itself.

Seven months of silence is not administrative backlog. It is a governance signal.

The question is whether anyone within the system is prepared to interpret it honestly.

#RTI #KPTransparency #RightToInformation #Accountability #SportsGovernance #PublicFunds #OpenGovernment #GovernanceFailure #InstitutionalSilence #InvestigativeFeature