Ahid responds to Shareef: 76 percent of government inquiries remain unanswered

Information Commissioner Ahid Rasheed has stated that not a single government ministry has met the minimum legal requirements for proactive disclosure of information, noting that 76 percent of inquiries submitted to the government remain unanswered to date.

Clarifying the actual data regarding Right to Information (RTI) requests following recent remarks by government spokesperson Mohamed Hussain Shareef, Information Commissioner Ahid Rasheed stated that 712 cases have been submitted to the commission so far in 2025.

Of these, 541 cases—representing 76 percent of the total—were filed because state institutions, specifically information officers or review committees, failed to provide any response. This is not merely a matter of information being denied or delayed; it is the stark reality. This represents a significant challenge to the enforcement of the law.

Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, state institutions are not only required to provide information upon request. The law mandates that specific categories of information must be proactively disclosed to the public. However, to date, not a single government ministry has met the minimum legal standards for proactive disclosure. Across all ministries, the compliance rate with these mandatory requirements stands at zero percent.

A new allegation surfaced during Thursday's press conference, suggesting that some individuals requesting information are not "real persons." In response, Ahid stated that the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly defines the specific circumstances under which a request for information can be denied. He further noted that if such a situation arises, the applicant must be notified within the legally mandated timeframe. Ahid emphasized that even if there are doubts regarding the identity of the requester, remaining silent and failing to provide a response is not a legally permissible option.

Ahid also highlighted several other points during the press conference. Regarding the issue of information requests being submitted to the wrong agency, he stated that the law is very clear. In such instances, it is the responsibility of that agency to forward the request to the correct authority holding the information. He emphasized that this is not a valid excuse for failing to provide a response.

Secondly, he stated that submitting requests for the same information to multiple agencies does not constitute an abuse of the law. This is an action someone might take when it is unclear which specific institution holds the information. He further noted that every agency receiving a request for information bears a legal responsibility to provide a response.

Regarding the issue of multiple individuals submitting the same inquiry, Ahid stated that this does not constitute an abuse of the law. Instead, he argued it serves as the strongest evidence that the information in question should have been proactively disclosed. The fact that so many people are independently seeking the same information proves there is a significant public interest in the matter. Ahid further clarified that these requests are not part of a coordinated or orchestrated effort.

Furthermore, addressing concerns regarding information requests based on hearsay, Ahid stated that the law does not require applicants to disclose their reasons or motives for seeking information. He emphasized that state institutions are legally obligated to provide a response and that the nature of the request is not a valid justification for withholding information.

Addressing requests for information concerning foreign relations, trade secrets, and national security, Ahid stated that while the law provides specific grounds for withholding information, these circumstances do not justify a complete lack of response. Even in such cases, authorities are legally obligated to provide a written response citing the specific statutory provisions and explaining the reasons why the requested information cannot be disclosed.

Regarding the issue of assessing "public interest" in the disclosure of information, Ahid stated that the concept of "public interest" or "common good" is not a legal basis for withholding information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. He noted that the law clearly defines the specific circumstances under which information may be withheld. Ahid further emphasized that state institutions do not have the discretion to withhold information by creating additional rules that are not stipulated in the Act.

Ahid stated that the Right to Information (RTI) Act provides legal remedies for every issue raised during Thursday's press conference. He emphasized that the solution is not to remain silent, but to provide a formal written response. Furthermore, Ahid noted that the government has failed to provide any justification to prove that withholding a response is a legally defensible position.

Ahid provided these details in response to remarks made by the government spokesperson, who alleged that the Right to Information (RTI) Act was being exploited. The Information Commissioner stated that there is no evidence to support such claims.

Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, President's Office Spokesperson Mohamed Hussain Shareef stated that his remarks followed an extensive review of the matter. Shareef noted that while he respects the perspective of Information Commissioner Ahid Rasheed, he does not agree with the Commissioner's decision.

Shareef noted that some individuals are submitting information requests to agencies that have no connection to the data being sought. He further alleged that multiple requests for the same information are being repeatedly filed under various names. Additionally, Shareef shared statistics regarding Right to Information (RTI) requests submitted to the President's Office between May of last year and May 1 of this year.

According to the statistics, a total of 288 Right to Information (RTI) requests were submitted. Out of these, 233 requests have been processed and answered, while 55 requests remain pending. Shareef stated that some of the outstanding requests are still in the process of data collection, while others involve sensitive information that cannot be disclosed immediately.

"There are matters concerning the Maldives' foreign relations, confidentiality clauses in financial agreements, and issues related to national security," he stated. He further noted that "answers cannot be provided for certain matters."

On Wednesday, Attorney General Ahmed Usham also alleged that the Right to Information (RTI) Act is being exploited. He stated that state institutions are becoming overwhelmed by the sheer volume of requests being submitted.

Responding to these concerns, Information Commissioner Ahid stated that there is no evidence to suggest that the law is being systematically exploited. He further noted that a more significant issue is the failure of state institutions to fulfill their legal obligations regarding the disclosure of information.