THE failure of the Presidency to respond to legitimate enquiries about the performance of government, as recently reported in the media, is disappointing and unacceptable in law. The International Press Centre (IPC) claimed to have submitted its request for information to the Presidency on two occasions, April 20, and May 15, in soft and hard copies respectively, but received no reply. The organisation sought 'detailed information on the status of performance or implementation in 28 of the 91 areas (which the president promised during his campaign, to work on). These include the completion of the Lagos to Jebba rail project, the revival of the Ajaokuta steel project, the exploration of coal deposits as well as the construction of additional dams to generate more power, and the construction of petro-chemical plants and a central gas processing plant.IPC has, in line with its mandate as a media rights organisation, done what the media is supposed to do as stipulated in Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Furthermore, the requestis valid as covered by Section 1 (1)of the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) 2011 on 'the right of any person to access or request information, whetheror not contained in any written form, which is in the custodyor possession of any public official, agency, or institutionhowsoever described'. The IPC had fulfilled all righteousness to deserve a reply.It is disappointing that the government that enacted the FOIA only a year ago is not leading by example to uphold the law. Indeed, the lukewarm attitude of the Presidency reflects the general lack of desire toenact thelaw at all as exemplified by the 12-yeardelay preceding its enactment. Beside the moral impropriety of this act of omission, the relevant officials at the Presidency cannot be ignorant of the legal implication of a wilful failure by a public institution as defined in Section 2 (7), to respondto a legitimate request for information. Firstly, Section 4 of the FOIA grants seven days (subject to other provisions) for response or a 'written notice to the applicant that access to all orpart of the information (sought) will not be granted, stating reasons forthe denial, andthe sectionunder which the denial is made'-4 (b). Secondly,a public institution or itsagent proven to have wrongfully denied access to information'is liable on conviction to a fine of N500,000' ' Section 7 (5).It is possible that the Presidency may not have the detailed information requested by IPC. But that will not savethe executive arm of government from falling foul of the law because,the FOIA in s.9(1)demandsthat, 'everygovernment or public institution shall ensure that it keeps every information or record about the institution'soperations, personnel, activities and other relevantor related information or records'. Against the backdrop of these considerations, it is an act of illegality for the Presidency not to respond to the IPC application for information. Indeed, government may be encouraging the view that the FOIA faces a cultural obstacle in the sense that the culture of disclosure is lacking here. Obviously, the failure of every citizen to speak up against acts of impropriety in public and private lives is inimical to an effective implementation of the FOIA. In turn, this damaging deficiency fuels the lack of transparency in governance and the moral and financial corruption that thrive in public institutions.On the one hand, the public mustremind itselfthat the Act isnot meant to be implemented by the media alone; it is a civic right to know howpublic affairs are managed by electedofficials. The instrumentality of the exercise of 'the right to know' is the Freedom of Information law, to beput intopractice and tested byallbona fide persons. Likewise, the media, it must be admitted, possess the constitutional power, the stature and theinfluence to 'uphold the responsibility and accountability of government to the people'. This it must do more vigorously than hitherto by continuously demanding the commitment of government to the law it has enacted. The first requirement for this, as rightly hinted by IPC, is that media practitioners familiarise themselves with the provisions of the FOIA.It is gratifying that some individuals and civil society groups have been active in this respect. Lately, the Central Bank of Nigeria has been taken to court by an interested party in search of information on the operations of the bank. More of such proactive measures are needed in a truly ordered society. Furthermore, the Nigerian Bar Association and the Judiciary should provide support in their various ways, such as legal service and quick adjudication on related matters that may come before the courts.Good governance, development and social progress are predicated on transparency, accountability and an open government. It is no coincidence that some of the nations ranked high on the UNDP Human Development Index scale are those with decades of freedom of information laws ' Sweden (1766) and Norway (1970), Australia (1982). If Nigerians desire good governance and its benefits, they must take pain to exercise their right to know how their public institutions operate. The inaction of the Presidency may be a verdict on 'the Nigerian condition' as some people have postulated. But the Presidency can, and should perform far better than it has so far; and under its watch, the country can be better than it is now.
Click here to read full news..
