FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
AND POLITICAL DISCLOSURE
By Yushau A. Shuaib
While the Freedom of Information (FOI)
Bill is lying fallow somehow, the nation wakes to note free and
unsolicited full disclosures on political and financial state of
affairs from the powerful public offices in Nigeria through the
media. The legitimacy or otherwise of the exposure of hidden deals
and confidential documents would not have generated controversy if
the FOI bill has been passed.
At the time the imbroglio was raging
on those disclosures, a workshop was going on in Abuja on the
Freedom of Information which was organized by Media Right Agenda (MRA)
with the support of UK Government’s Global Opportunities Fund.
Present at the programme were representatives of EFCC, ICPC,
Nigerian Police, the military, Code of Conducts Bureau, Human
Right Commission, National Press Centre, INEC, Security Printing
Coy, Judiciary and a host of other sensitive stakeholders. I was
in attendance to realize what Nigeria misses for not passing the
law of FOI.
The participants at the workshop might
not require much case studies going by the development in the
polity. As a section to the conflict doles out a litany of
indictments, the other party rains down torrents of allegations
and accusationsd to the curious populace. The reality is that the
public is overwhelmed by the magnitude of hard facts and official
documents that have wrapped up the media; instead of being amused
they are bemused and in suspense of what may happen next.
Though there is a provision in the
1999 Constitution on the principles of freedom of expression, it
requires enabling legislations for freedom (free-exchange) of
information for citizens to exercise these rights. The Freedom of
Information (FOI) Bill is a necessary instrument required to get
pure and substantiated political and financial disclosures on
decisions of public institutions for the benefit of the public.
The Bill which has been in the National Assembly for some years
seeks to provide a right to public information or records kept by
government, public institutions and/or private bodies carrying out
public functions for citizens and non-citizens. This will promote
transparency and accountability in all the sectors. The
legislation is not a strange phenomenon as other countries have
operated it through decades like Sweden since 1766, USA 1966, and
France 1978 amongst other advanced countries. In Africa we have
countries like South Africa in 2000 as an example amongst others.
The delay in the legislation in most
African countries, was as a result of the culture of secrecy that
prevails across the public service as a reflection of the legacy
of the Official Secret Act of colonial masters, which regulates
and regiments the civil service in such a way that openness is
usually sanctioned. Also, as could be observed, one-party states
behave secretively to protect political leaders against stiff
opposition and rebellion from their citizenries. As vital as
access to information is, a culture of secrecy in a democratic
government, negates the spirit of openness, accountability and
transparency.
The archaic Law of Secrecy which is
deployed to reprimand and sanction lesser mortals (Civil
servants/workers) may need to be revisited to reflect the digital
age and democratic norms. In fact such secrecy laws call for
amendments as documents that had been classified as TOP
SECRET have ended up in Maisuya joint and
Akara seller to wrap customers’ meals, as well as the
antics of officers who are in the habit of using strangers to type
and photocopy confidential materials at business centres
across-the-road.
As advantageous as Freedom of
Information is in other countries there are legitimate exemptions
to avoid interference with judicial process, its abuse for
criminality and subversion of nation’s security. Some notable
exemptions include those bordering on defence, international
affairs, law enforcement, commercially sensitive information
(patent) and personal information. The commercially sensitive
information does not exempt financial institutions from public
enquiry and scrutiny. In fact with the success of the
consolidation in the banking sector in Nigeria, the citizen may
have the right to know the operations and dealings of banks in
that exercise. Clear pictures of privatization processes and the
identity of major players may satisfy the curiosity of the
citizenry. From the political angle too, the citizen may be
delighted to know the sources of funding of political parties,
campaign rallies and their statements of account since they all
serve the public interest. Even states may be compelled to give
detail account of their expenditures on public and private causes
and on such flimsies as congratulatory messages, chieftaincy
titles and flamboyant honorary awards to enable the citizen
measure their relevance to their welfare.
Since the Federal Government has been
proactive in publishing monthly disbursements from the Federation
Account, it is desirable that the tiers also give details of their
expenditures to avoid suspicions, campaigns of calumny and denials
from likely opponents. Without even prompting, the citizens
require full information on how they are represented and governed.
The very nature of democratic
government implies accountability and transparency, a free press
and other democratic checks. Interestingly, Nigeria as a
developing nation has free and independent press. Its media have
successfully exposed corruption in higher places and remained
undaunted in the face of victimization, politicization and
sentiment expressed in some quarters against their professional
stubbornness. Nigerians are now more comfortable and believe in
the information from the impartial press than from opposition
politicians who are usually one-sided in their attempt to nail
those in the authority. Therefore the media may be given
unfettered access to information for the benefit of the citizenry.
With the strong investigative journalism in Nigeria and the
likelihood that the media may further be strengthened by passage
of the bill to expose corrupt practices, the fear and risk of
discovery will ultimately reduce inordinate tendencies of
institutions and officers to vices.
Though one of the sanctions in the
bill is jail term for destruction and falsification of documents
in an attempt to protect vested interest or commit fraud, the FOI
Bill in the National Assembly has no provision for an agency to
monitor its implementation. In other nations they assign
statutory roles for ombudsmen to investigate complaints by
citizens against public institutions. Ombudsman is independent in
monitoring the application of FOI for the promotion of access to
information by investigating complaints, mediating between the
seeker of information and the institution concerned and also has
power to enforce rulings. It would be desirable for our legislator
to insert this provision for instituting the regulator.
We are indeed in a very interesting
period which calls for the support of FOI bill which recognizes
the citizen’s right to know, promote war against corruption and
sustain economic development. If activities of public institutions
are subjected to scrutiny, it will be easier to measure their
efforts against their goals and our expectations. Just as the
media provides cover for whistleblowers as reliable sources, FOI
would guarantee their maximum protection to further promote
openness and transparency in service delivery. It is when the
public is adequately informed, truthfully and honestly on services
that they would feel the impact and be proud to identify with the
institutions.
____________________________________________________
Yushau A. Shuaib
How many people have we made
happy today from our actions?
Are we fair in our
communications and judgement of others?
Let think and communicate
positively.
My writings:
www.yashuaib.com
|
