Pakistan's information watchdog has compelled the National Assembly secretariat to release financial records concerning legal counsel, marking a significant win for transparency advocates. The Pakistan Information Commission (PIC) issued the directive on July 16 after upholding an appeal filed by journalist Saddia Mazhar under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017. Main Developments The Commission's order requires the NA secretariat to provide a year-wise list of all lawyers, law firms, and legal consultants engaged since January 2022, along with detailed payments made to each. Additionally, the secretariat must disclose the total number of court cases filed since that date, including case numbers, titles, and the names of relevant courts. Specific payment details for lawyers handling writ petitions before the Islamabad High Court must also be furnished. Background Journalist Saddia Mazhar initially submitted an information request on April 17, 2026, seeking five categories of data from the National Assembly. The NA secretariat resisted disclosure, arguing that the requested information was privileged under a Speaker's Ruling dated October 4, 2024, and was protected as privileged communication under the Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order, 1984. The PIC rejected both defenses, stating that the Speaker's ruling did not classify lawyer payment records as privileged and that the Qanoon-i-Shahadat provisions were inapplicable here. Read also: KP Security Forces Kill Five Militants in Coordinated Operations Why It Matters The ruling reinforces the core purpose of the 2017 transparency law: promoting accountability, public participation, and good governance through open access to official records. By classifying legal expenditure as public record, the Commission has set a precedent that could compel other government bodies to disclose similar financial details. This decision directly challenges the tendency of public authorities to shield spending on legal services from public scrutiny. What's Next The NA Secretariat has 10 days from the order's issuance to provide the requested information to both the applicant and the Commission. Failure to comply could invite further enforcement action under the Right of Access to Information Act. The case also raises broader questions about how other legislative bodies will handle similar transparency requests for legal expenditures.