Despite the
difficulties of trying to operationalise FOI legislation, it is a good thing
for the country as we work to remove the obstacles. More information well
utilised will be in the best interest of the country and its citizens on the
long run. There may be red faces here and there but the transition to a better
Nigeria is not an event but a process. The process of implementing FOI may be a
tortuous journey but we must not lose sight of the end goal. An open society is
in our best interest.
I was invited to a
workshop last week to review the level of progress in the compliance of
government agencies to the Freedom of Information Act. It was a crucial
opportunity for me to bring myself up to speed with some of the happenings
within the civil society arena in Nigeria. As part of my preparations for the
discussions, I had to read the Freedom of Information Act all over again. It is
one legislation that will give you consolation about the amount of resources
and sacrifices that were put into it. I recall the exchanges between respected
civil society leaders and many politicians during the Obasanjo regime. It is
gratifying that after eleven years of intense advocacy, reason triumphed, and
the bill was passed into an act, which was later signed into law by President
Jonathan.
The passage of the
FOI Act remains a very commendable effort, but one wonders why its
implementation remains a daunting challenge. So far, only sixty out of hundreds
of parastatals and government agencies have been able to set up compliance
structures as prescribed by the law. Although some people argue that the FOI
Act is too much of an idealistic legislation, because of its civil society
origin, the law is the law. Rather than dwell on the idealism argument, I will
rather wonder whether the drafters of the law took the Nigerian context into
consideration. Some of these law’s paragraphs are uprooted from foreign
jurisdictions and foisted on contexts like ours, without adapting it
accordingly. I will use a few instances to illustrate my argument, as one tries
to understand the law further and chart a way forward.
First is that I
consider the law as somewhat ambiguous. For instance, the objectives are “to
make public records and information more freely available, provide public
access to public records and information, protect public records and
information to the extent it consists with public interest and protection of
personal privacy, protect serving public officials from adverse consequences of
disclosing certain kinds of information without authorisation and establish
procedure for the achievement of the purposes and related matters.” Although
the word ‘public’ was mentioned more than 114 times throughout the text of the
law, there was nowhere it was clarified. The assumption will probably be that
everyone reading the law will have the same understanding of what is public.
Odd! In a country where many private things are done under the cover of public
interest, it will be important to offer some explanation as to what the law
means by the word ‘public’. Even within the country, there are slight
differences between what is considered public or private. What is private in
Yola, may be considered public in Yenagoa.
The demand for access
to public information to be seen as a human right is great, but it will take a
while. The target for public institutions to respond to FOI requests within
four days is excellent. However, in a situation where many agencies are not
connected to the Internet or their servers are perpetually down, what do you do?
The whole idea of proactive public disclosures sounds very good, at least with
the amendment of the Official Secrecy Act of 1911. Yet the culture of secrecy
prevails in the civil service. It is either as a result of ignorance or wilful
negligence. It is either that the bureaucrats are deliberately hiding the
information, or that citizens are not yet aware of their rights. Today, very
few government agencies have functional websites that are updated regularly.
There are very few designated portals or platforms from where the public can
obtain reliable information.
For FOI and
anti-corruption reforms to meet, there is a role for anti-corruption
institutions. How many of them have so far established functional FOI units
within their offices? Do EFCC, ICPC, Code of Conduct Bureau, Nigerian
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) disclose information
proactively? What is the integrity of the information obtained? Whose
responsibility is it to bring the government agencies up to speed with proactive
disclosure and build the capacity of citizens on productive advocacy?
Now let us talk
briefly about the relationship between a Freedom of Information regime and the
war against corruption. The persistence of corruption, despite the application
of several remedies, means that proper diagnosis might not have been carried
out. So before we rush to the discussion of the relationship between
(anti-)corruption and open society, let us try to find out the underlying
causes of corruption in our country. No doubt the strain of corruption in
Nigeria is a peculiar one that inhibits growth. Many countries like ours, that
are plagued with corruption, have managed to continue to grow. A country like
Indonesia has a thriving crude oil and palm oil industry amidst high levels of
corruption.
I do not need to
overemphasise the relationship between increased availability of information in
the public domain and accountability. However, that relationship is not
automatic. Disclosure of information for increased transparency is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for accountability. With transparent action,
citizens will be expected to demand accountability. Information therefore
become tools and ammunitions for advocacy with which citizens can demand a
relationship of accountability from their leaders. A Freedom of Information
regime will only provide us with the information, the rest is in our hands –
the citizens. The ability to use the information the right way is another
important thing. Often many people use the liberty of social media to use
information wrongly.
For FOI and
anti-corruption reforms to meet, there is a role for anti-corruption
institutions. How many of them have so far established functional FOI units
within their offices? Do EFCC, ICPC, Code of Conduct Bureau, Nigerian
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) disclose information
proactively? What is the integrity of the information obtained? Whose
responsibility is it to bring the government agencies up to speed with
proactive disclosure and build the capacity of citizens on productive advocacy?
Whose responsibility is it to test the FOI law in its current state, and find
out what works and what does not, and why?
Despite the
difficulties of trying to operationalise FOI legislation, it is a good thing
for the country as we work to remove the obstacles. More information well
utilised will be in the best interest of the country and its citizens on the
long run. There may be red faces here and there but the transition to a better
Nigeria is not an event but a process. The process of implementing FOI may be a
tortuous journey but we must not lose sight of the end goal. An open society is
in our best interest.
Uche Igwe is a
doctoral Researcher at the Department of Politics, School of Law, Politics and
Sociology, University of Sussex.
