RTI’s Dead End: Asking Questions Is Easy in Peshawar Sports Directorate, Getting Answers Is Not

 

Musarrat Ullah Jan , KikxNow , Digital Creator

In the Peshawar Sports Directorate, transparency is not absent in speeches. It is present on paper, stamped, registered, and formally acknowledged. The real absence is something else: answers.

Information, in theory, exists. Files are opened, RTI applications are logged, receipts are signed. But when the time comes to disclose what those files contain, the system quietly shifts into a different mode, where access exists in principle but not in practice.

RTI Promise vs Administrative Reality

Nearly forty Right to Information (RTI) requests are currently pending at different stages in the Sports Directorate. These are not complex philosophical queries. They are basic administrative questions: procurement records, vehicle usage logs, fuel consumption, equipment purchases, and contract details.

The pattern of response from the Public Information Officer is consistent enough to become predictable. Either there is silence, delay, or a vague administrative placeholder: “we will look into it.”

That phrase has become a kind of bureaucratic escape hatch. It does not mean yes or no. It means nothing will be decided now, and possibly not later.

This is where the RTI framework begins to lose its meaning. A law designed to ensure citizen access to public information becomes a waiting mechanism. Not a right in action, but a right in suspension.

The Core Contradiction

The RTI law is structurally simple. A citizen asks. The institution responds within a defined timeframe. The assumption is that information belongs to the public unless there is a legally valid reason to withhold it.

But inside the Sports Directorate, the logic appears inverted. Requests are accepted, logged, and formally processed, yet disclosure rarely follows.

This creates a contradiction that cannot be ignored:

Information is recorded, but not released.

Systems are functional, but outcomes are absent.

Procedures exist, but accountability does not move forward.

At that point, the question is no longer whether information exists. The question becomes why access is being stalled despite formal compliance.

The 21 Vehicle Question

One of the most direct unresolved queries involves approximately 21 government vehicles.

The questions are basic:

 

Where are these vehicles being used?

Who is authorized to operate them?

Where are the logbooks?

How is fuel being recorded and verified?

These are not investigative luxuries. They are standard fleet accountability requirements in any functioning public department.

Yet responses remain absent.

In informal discussions within sports circles, there are long-standing claims that some of these vehicles have been used beyond official purposes. However, without records, these remain claims rather than verifiable facts.

What stands out is the imbalance in record discipline. Athlete-related documentation can include highly detailed personal and performance data, while asset tracking for vehicles appears significantly less transparent.

That inconsistency raises a structural question: why is micro-level athlete data meticulously maintained, while macro-level asset accountability remains unclear?

Fuel Consumption: Accounting Basics Missing

Another set of pending RTI requests relates to fuel usage.

The questions are straightforward:

How much fuel was purchased?

Which vehicles consumed it?

What monthly breakdown exists?

Which officials verified usage?

These fall under basic public accounting standards. In any audited system, fuel is one of the easiest expenditure categories to trace because it is continuous, measurable, and documented through supply chains.

Yet here, the documentation appears fragmented or inaccessible.

The result is a situation where vehicles are active, fuel is consumed, but traceability of expenditure remains unclear. In governance terms, that is not a minor gap. It is a control failure.

The Computer Procurement Gap

Another unresolved issue concerns computer procurement worth approximately three lakh rupees per unit in reported purchases.

On paper, these computers exist. In practice, multiple employees reportedly rely on personal laptops for official work.

This raises three simple possibilities:

Either the equipment was delivered and is unused,

or it was never properly distributed,

or it exists somewhere outside documented inventory control.

All three scenarios indicate a breakdown in procurement verification.

If public funds were used to purchase equipment that is not operational within offices, then the issue is not just administrative inefficiency. It becomes a question of procurement integrity and asset management failure.

CCTV Surveillance: Shrinking Visibility

The Peshawar Sports Complex reportedly once had around 40 CCTV cameras installed. Current operational estimates suggest only a fraction remain active, with some accounts placing the number near a dozen.

What happened to the rest is not clearly documented.

Key unanswered questions include:

Were cameras removed, damaged, or relocated?

Is there an active monitoring system in place?

Who is responsible for maintenance and audits?

Surveillance systems are not cosmetic installations. They are accountability infrastructure. When they degrade without explanation, oversight itself weakens.

Banunu Sports Complex: Allocation Questions

At the Banunu sports complex, RTI requests cover allocation of shops, use of VIP hostel rooms, and administrative distribution of facilities.

The core questions are procedural:

Who was granted access to commercial spaces?

On what criteria were allocations made?

Are hostel facilities being used according to official policy?

No verified responses have been provided.

This matters because allocation of public facilities is one of the most common entry points for informal privilege systems in administrative environments. Without transparency, usage becomes difficult to audit.

Procurement Concerns and Contract Irregularities

Another unresolved layer involves contracts awarded to firms that appear to operate primarily in construction rather than supply procurement.

This raises procurement design questions:

Was the tender category appropriate?

Was the bidding process competitive and transparent?

Were eligibility criteria aligned with contract scope?

These are not allegations of wrongdoing on their own. They are governance checks that require documentary disclosure to validate compliance.

Without access to tender files, evaluation reports, and contract justification, the process remains opaque.

Athletics Ground Funding: The Missing Ledger

Funding and expenditure for athletics grounds remain another unresolved area.

Basic questions remain unanswered:

What funds were allocated?

How much was spent?

What work was completed and verified?

In functional public finance systems, such answers should exist in summarized form within a single audit sheet.

Instead, they remain dispersed across pending files.

The Larger Pattern

When viewed collectively, these unresolved RTI requests form a pattern rather than isolated incidents.

Dozens of pending information requests

Vehicle usage without transparent logs

Fuel consumption without clear audit trails

Procurement without visible asset confirmation

Surveillance infrastructure without consistent operation

Facility allocations without published criteria

Contracts without publicly accessible evaluation clarity

Individually, each issue could be explained as delay or administrative backlog. Together, they point toward a systemic resistance to disclosure.

Final Assessment: Transparency in Principle, Not Practice

The Sports Directorate presents a structure where transparency exists at the level of documentation but not at the level of disclosure.

That distinction matters.

A system is not transparent because it records information. It is transparent because it allows that information to be independently verified.

At present, RTI functions more as a procedural checkpoint than an accountability mechanism. Requests move in, but answers do not move out at the same speed or consistency.

The uncomfortable question is no longer whether RTI exists.

It is whether it functions as intended, or whether it has become another administrative layer that formally accepts scrutiny while practically avoiding it.

Because when questioning is permitted but answering is delayed indefinitely, transparency becomes procedural theatre rather than governance reality.

And that is where the real dead end begins.