Two Years Later, KP Sports Directorate Answers an Old RTI With the Wrong Question: What Happened to the Missing Information?

 

Musarrat Ullah Jan , KikxNow , Digital Creator

PESHAWAR: A delayed RTI response from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sports Directorate has raised serious questions about transparency, accountability and the department’s handling of official information.

The RTI application was submitted on April 9, 2024. At that time, the post of Director Development was held by a different officer. The information sought related to the position, the officer holding it, salary details and issues concerning sports development schemes.

Instead of providing a clear record of the officer who was holding the post when the RTI application was filed, the department’s response, issued almost two years later, identifies Munir Abbas, a Grade-18 officer who is currently holding additional charge of the Grade-19 post of Director Development.

That creates the central question:

Why has the department provided information about the current Director Development when the RTI application specifically dates back to 2024, when someone else was holding the position?

The problem becomes more serious when it comes to the salary question.

The RTI sought information about the salary attached to the post and when the relevant officer had been receiving it. Yet the response does not clearly provide the salary information sought for the period relevant to the original application.

In other words, one of the most important financial questions remains unanswered.

The department has instead stated that Munir Abbas, a Grade-18 officer, has been holding additional charge of the Grade-19 Director Development position for approximately one year and is drawing salary according to his substantive grade.

But that does not answer what was asked in 2024.

It leaves a basic accountability trail missing:

Who was Director Development in April 2024? What was that officer’s grade? What salary was being paid? From what date? When did that officer leave the position? Who subsequently took charge?

These are straightforward administrative questions, yet the RTI response does not appear to provide a complete timeline.

The response also gives brief information about sports schemes. The Choha Gujar sports scheme was reportedly de-notified because of a land dispute involving local residents and litigation, while the Palosi Sports Complex contract had reportedly been awarded and civil work was under way.

But again, the response raises more questions than it answers.

If major sports schemes became controversial or were affected by administrative decisions, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing which officials were responsible for the schemes at the relevant time, what authority they exercised and under what rules they were assigned those responsibilities.

A particularly sensitive issue concerns the alleged assignment of additional responsibilities to an officer who had come to the department on deputation. If an officer on deputation was given authority over development projects or an additional charge, the legal and administrative basis for that decision should be documented.

The department cannot answer a historical RTI request simply by describing whoever happens to be occupying the post two years later.

That approach effectively changes the question.

The issue is therefore bigger than a delayed reply. It is about whether the department is maintaining a transparent administrative record of who held key positions, who received public money, who exercised authority over development schemes and under what legal authority.

The timeline itself also requires explanation. The official response bears the date July 31, 2026, while the KP Information Commission’s diary record shows receipt on August 4, 2026. If the 2024 RTI was genuinely answered in 2026, the department must explain the extraordinary delay. If the date is a clerical error, the department should correct the record and explain when the response was actually prepared and dispatched.

Most importantly, the department should answer the original questions rather than substitute current information for historical facts.

The unanswered questions are simple: Who was Director Development in 2024? What was his/her salary? From what date was it paid? What happened to that officer? Who authorized subsequent additional charges? And what was the legal basis for assigning those responsibilities, particularly where deputationists were involved?

Until these questions are answered with documentary evidence, the RTI response remains incomplete and the department’s transparency remains open to serious scrutiny.

#KPSports #KPGovernment #RTI #KPInformationCommission #SportsDirectorate #Transparency #Accountability #SportsDevelopment #Peshawar #BureaucracyExposed