PTV Refuses to Disclose Foreign Travel Costs, Citing Security and Legal Exemptions

ISLAMABAD — In an ongoing struggle between investigative journalism and public sector transparency, state broadcaster Pakistan Television (PTV) has formally refused to disclose details regarding foreign travel expenses incurred by its officials, reporters, and anchors, setting the stage for a critical legal showdown before the Pakistan Information Commission.

The issue surfaced when journalist Saddia Mazhar, exercising her constitutional right to know, submitted a formal information request to the Managing Director of PTV. Mazhar sought a comprehensive record of public money spent on overseas trips taken by the Pakistan TV’s personnel. Her request specifically asked for itemized figures concerning airfare, hotel accommodations, and total travel allowances paid to Pakistan TV officers, anchors, and reporters deployed abroad.

When the Managing Director failed to respond within the timeframe mandated by the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, Mazhar escalated the matter by filing an appeal before the Pakistan Information Commission.

In response to the Commission’s proceedings, PTV submitted a formal written reply—which was subsequently shared with Mazhar for her review and feedback—flatly rejecting the release of the requested records.

PTV defended its refusal by explaining that its officers and editorial staff are routinely assigned to foreign tours for official duties. These assignments, the broadcaster noted, include covering prime ministerial trips, high-level government engagements, international conferences, and other key state summits, with specific teams deployed based on the nature and requirements of each event.

However, PTV maintained that the details of these deployments—such as employee names, team compositions, mission objectives, and the resulting financial expenditures—are strictly official and confidential records.

“Disclosure of such information may involve matters relating to official deployments, security considerations, operational arrangements, and other sensitive aspects of high-level official engagements,” PTV stated in its written reply. “Therefore, such details are not ordinarily disclosed to third parties unless specifically authorized by the competent authority and permissible under the applicable rules and policies.”

To legally justify withholding the records, PTV requested the Information Commission to grant it an exemption under Section 16(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Right of Access to Information Act.

Under the Act, Section 16(d) outlines specific scenarios where transparency can be bypassed to prevent harm. While Section 16(d)(i) protects economic interests against premature tax or fiscal disclosures, Section 16(d)(ii) explicitly exempts information if its release is likely to damage the financial interests of a public body by granting an unfair commercial advantage to an entity negotiating contracts for goods, services, or property acquisition with that public body. PTV invoked these statutory provisions to argue that disclosing its travel expenses could compromise its financial and operational interests.

Refusing to accept the state broadcaster’s argument, Mazhar has now filed formal objections before the Commission, challenging PTV’s reliance on security and commercial exemptions to conceal state spending.