Paper Committees, Missing Records, and a Silent State — The True Picture of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's Sports Governance

 

Musarrat Ullah Jan ,KikxNow , Digital Creator

When you examine the administrative structure of sports in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), one thing becomes glaringly obvious: committees exist, notifications are issued, and funds are allocated, but accountability and records are routinely missing.

The Provincial Sports Management Committee, established under notification SO(S)2-39/sports policy/2020 on August 26, 2020, has become a prime example of this systemic flaw. The committee's mandate was crystal clear: overseeing the provincial sports fund, offering policy recommendations, and making decisions to improve the sports ecosystem.

Yet, five years later, the reality is that the committee’s practical performance, meeting records, and policy impacts remain shrouded in question marks.

In August 2025, an application was submitted to the Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2013, seeking details about this committee. The application raised fundamental questions that form the backbone of any governance system:

When and how often did the committee meet?

What were the agendas and official minutes of those meetings?

What decisions were made regarding public funds?

What are the committee's official Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)?

If the committee is dysfunctional, what are the reasons behind it?

These are not trivial questions. They probe the very pulse of the framework upon which the provincial sports policy stands. Yet, even after 10 months, no official response has been provided.

The KP Right to Information Act 2013 is widely considered one of Pakistan's strongest legal tools for granting citizens access to state records. By law, public institutions are bound to respond within 10 working days. Here, the issue is not just a delay; it is prolonged, calculated silence. This silence is both a violation of legal mandates and a reflection of institutional apathy.

According to legal experts, when an institution ignores an RTI request, it falls under "deemed refusal," giving the applicant the right to approach the Information Commission. But the deeper question remains: Why do institutions choose to disregard this law so blatantly?

The KP Sports Department boasts an extensive list of committees. There is a committee for every policy, every fund, and every event. However, the ground reality is that most of these bodies are either completely inactive or their records are hidden from the public.

A committee is formed.

A formal notification is issued.

An initial meeting may (or may not) take place.

Complete silence follows.

 

Ultimately, no audit or performance report ever reaches the public.

The Provincial Sports Management Committee seems perfectly aligned with this pattern.

One of the core responsibilities of this committee was to oversee the utilization of the provincial sports fund. With no meeting records available, it is only natural to ask: Who is actually approving these funds? Are these approvals coming from a legitimate, collective forum or are they being handed down purely through administrative bureaucracy? Do policy recommendations ever materialize into reality? These are not just administrative queries; they are deeply tied to financial transparency.

What does this administrative silence signify?

In governance, institutional silence usually points to one of three things:

The records do not exist.

The records are incomplete.

They simply do not want to disclose the records.

In all three scenarios, transparency is the casualty. And without transparency, governance is nothing more than a paper fortress.

Journalists tracking RTI cases in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa point out that many departments avoid releasing information because their internal record-keeping is incredibly weak, committee activity is minimal, or critical decisions are routinely made through informal, back-channel networks. This is where the divide between the law and reality becomes stark.

In this entire episode, the blame cannot be pinned solely on the PIO. This is an institutional failure. If a committee operates for five years without maintaining clear records, the finger points directly at the political and administrative leadership.

Where is the leadership of the Sports Department? What exactly is the Secretary of Sports monitoring? Have these gaps ever been flagged in official audit reports?

The real crisis in KP’s sports sector is not a lack of funds; it is a profound lack of accountability. Committees are formed and policies are drafted, but the accountability phase is consistently bypassed. This exact gap is what hampers the development of sports in the province.

The case of the Provincial Sports Management Committee is not just about a single stonewalled RTI application. It is part of a much larger conversation: Is sports governance in KP genuinely functional, or is it merely running on paper?

A 10-month silence turns this query into a severe indictment. The ball is no longer just in the Sports Department's court. This question now stands before the Information Commission, audit institutions, and high-level policymakers.

Ultimately, the most pressing question is this: If the state cannot answer a simple RTI request, how can citizens trust that transparency is being maintained in major financial and structural decisions?

 

#RTI #RightToInformation #KPKSports #SportsGovernance #TransparencyInSports #Accountability #PublicFunds #SportsPolicy #PakistanSports #InvestigativeJournalism #FreedomOfInformation #GoodGovernance #SportsAdministration #PublicAccountability #SportsReform