Freedom of Information Bill Saga - Information is Power (Nigeria)
Freedom of Information Bill Saga - Information is Power
Vanguard (Lagos)
COLUMN
14 May 2008
Posted to the web 14 May 2008
By Ladipo Adamolekun
Lagos
The major explanation for the tortuous journey of Nigeria's Freedom of Information (FoI) bill since 1999 is the often forgotten truism that information is power, because persons in power in all polities tend to be unwilling to share it, especially with an amorphous and unpredictable public.
The history of FoI laws/acts in many countries is characterized by delays of varying duration (for example, in Britain and Japan).
| |
However, once the legislation is introduced, it invariably gets adopted in the majority of cases, even if enforcement is delayed or abridged through inadequate budgetary provision to cover the cost of making information available to the public.
The half-dozen or so African countries that already have FoI laws include South Africa (2000), Angola (2005) and Uganda (2005).
Nigeria's FoI bill 1999-2008
First introduced in 1999, Nigeria's FoI bill was raised in the lower chamber of the National Assembly (NASS) for the sixth time in early May 2008 and promptly withdrawn - ostensibly because the Representative (Rep) to move it was absent.
While the bill only managed to pass through the House in the 1999-2003 NASS, it was adopted by both chambers of the 2003-2007 NASS and sent to the President in March 2007 for his assent.
The reservations that led the former president to withhold his assent were only made public at a time when NASS could no longer make amendments. Considering the significant number of bills that the executive pressed on NASS to pass and which received presidential assent between March and May 2007, it is arguable that FoI bill failed to become law on purpose. And the purpose was the reluctance to share power with the public
While the incumbent president has publicly declared his willingness to assent to a FoI bill adopted by NASS, the current delay is on the side of the Senators and Reps.
For starters, NASS president, Senator Mark, would like representatives of the Newspapers Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN) to meet with him to discuss the problem of "quacks" in the media before he would support the adoption of the FoI bill. This nonsensical "conditionality" is another variation on the theme of reluctance to share power.
In the meantime, the bill that passed through the House in the two preceding NASS is facing new obstacles. When the bill was thrown out on April 29, some Reps argued that new members in the House (over 80 percent of total membership) need to study its contents and some others were of the view that the object of the bill should be included among the amendments to be proposed to the 1999 Constitution.
Since the bill was already available in the House, any interested new Rep could have obtained a copy to study before April 29.
The second excuse does not make sense because after, public access to government information would have been enshrined in the Constitution, there would still be need for a FoI law that would spell out its intendment and scope as well as the methods of enforcement. Again, the naysayers are only reluctant to share power!
The case for FoI
The main justifications for a FoI law in Nigeria are the same as in both old and new democracies. FoI laws grant and protect citizens' access to government information.
They are critical to the role of the media and watchdog-oriented civil society organizations in promoting both greater accountability and transparency and quality service delivery.
It is also true that citizens' access to public services is enhanced in contexts where FoI laws are enforced - citizens would know what services are available and where to request for them.
In particular, FoI law is widely acknowledged as a useful tool in the fight against corruption. The Newspapers Proprietors' Association of Nigeria (NPAN) made the point cogently in its reaction to the April 29th House vote against the FoI bill:
"Today, Nigerians do not and cannot know what degree of mismanagement, misappropriation and outright graft may be going on, even now at various tiers and branches of government and they may have to wait another four or even eight years when the tenure of this administration will end..."
Let me end with a personal experience. In 2006, I needed to consult the reports of the Public Accounts Committees in the two chambers of NASS as part of the preparation for an invited lecture.
The reports were denied by the secretariats of the two Committees, even though a senior staff of NASS's library physically went to request for them.
With the FoI law in place, the officials would not dare to deny me or any one else access to the reports.
Next steps
FoI proponents in NASS:
It would make sense for the FoI proponents in NASS to quickly agree on the few changes that need to be made to the bill in its current form. The following are my observations on a few areas of controversy that have been highlighted in the press:
Item: The former president's quibble about the bill's title is unimportant: "Freedom of Information" or
"Right to Information". FoI is the more widely used title and it should be maintained.
Item: The Section of the bill on refusal to disclose information on grounds of being "injurious to the conduct of international affairs or the defense of the Federal Republic of Nigeria" can be amended to include "security", immediately after "defense" as requested by the former president.
Item: The former president wanted the following provision in the bill dropped: the courts' power to override refusal by a head of government or a public institution to disclose information.
Keeping this provision in the bill will be consistent with Nigeria's ambition to be a law-based state. And it is a provision that is found in the majority of FoIs - it gives real teeth to them. The incumbent president, who likes to swear by the rule of law, is unlikely to have a problem with it.
FoI supporters in the media and civil society: The media need to use their capacity to both bark and bite on this subject. The barking of the NPAN, the Guild of Editors and the NUJ following the recent backsliding on the bill is appropriate and need to be sustained.
But the print and electronic media would also need to consider how best to collectively use their capacity to bite to focus the attention of NASS leadership and members on the FoI until it is passed.
The civil society groups that provided invaluable inputs into the preparation of the FoI bill in 1999 should work with its proponents in NASS to effect the few necessary changes to the bill and continue to pressure for its passage in the two chambers.
Update on soldiers and Nigeria's underdevelopment (Nigeria Notes, December 12, 2007)
I would like to praise General Yakubu Gowon (Rtd) for his honesty and forthrightness in acknowledging that three decades of military dictatorship in Nigeria failed to deliver "the much-needed development and transformation" (news reports, May 7, 2008).
And he was correct to generalize the verdict for military dictatorships in the entire African continent. I listened to General Alani Akinrinade make the same honest admission in respect of the Nigerian experience at a chance meeting in 1998.
Posts
