Aides of both President Umaru Yar'Adua and Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan were recently administered the oath of secrecy in Abuja. Davidson Iriekpen samples the opinion of politicians and lawyers,among others, who wonder if the oath will not affect the transparency policy of the present administration

Last week, the attention of Nigerians was drawn to the new concept introduced by the administration of President Umaru Yar'Adua, whereby political office holders serving in the State House, were administered the oath of secrecy and declaration of secrecy.

The oath-taking, which came on the heels of reports in the media on the state of health of the President that resulted in the President's 17-day absence from the country, surprised most Nigerians, in the sense that nowhere in the nation's law books is it that concept enshrined. Not even the Constitution. In the Seventh Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, provisions are made on the type of oaths and what category of officers that may take them. These are essentially oaths of allegiance, oath of office and judicial oath.

The political appointees, who took the oath of secrecy include the Principal Secretary to the President, Mr. David Edevbie, Principal Secretary to the Vice President, Chief Mike Oghiadome, the Chief Economic Adviser to the President, Dr. Tanimu Yakubu, the Special Adviser (Media and Publicity) to the President, Mr. Olusegun Adeniyi, Chief Physician to the President, Dr. Salisu Barau Banye, and Senior Special Assistant (Media and Publicity) to the Vice President, Mr. Ima Niboro.

Before the oath was administered on them, the Permanent Secretary, State House, Dr. B. K. Kaigama, said the oath was being administered on the instructions of President Yar'Adua, adding that civil servants in the State House had already taken the oath. In his brief remarks after the oath was taken, Hon. Justice Husseini Yusuf Baba of the Abuja High Court, urged all who had taken the oath to respect the solemn promises they had made before God, as they discharge the enormous task ahead of them.

For a country which has always had problems with running the affairs of government as a closed society, many Nigerians see the oath of secrecy as something that is alien to the country's nascent democracy. They argue that by imposing the oath on his staff, the President may have indirectly taken the country backwards. According to some people, though the oath may have been administered on the staff in the Presidential Villa, its impact goes beyond the Villa. They further submitted that the oath was a big signal that public and civil servants must treat the Nigerian people as outsiders, by refusing to tell them anything that is related to government.

In the light of the calls for a Freedom of Information law and the move towards an open society, many have also wondered if the oath of secrecy on the Presidency staff has now reaffirmed it. At the heart of the argument for and against the oath, is the sincerity, transparency and the commitment of the Yar'Adua administration to take the country to the promised land. Added to the above is fight against corruption and the commitment of the present administration in ridding the country of the hydra-headed problem. In a country where before the oath, virtually all government information is classified as top secret, and where so impenetrable is the veil of secrecy that government departments withhold information from each other under the guise of official secrets legislation, the oath of secrecy is no doubt one thing that Nigerians never expected from their leader.

Most importantly, is the fact that the oath of secrecy will further hinder the practice of journalism and access to information in the country moreso as all hands were on deck towards ensuring the Freedom of Information Bill (FoIB) is passed.

There are also instances where civil servants refuse to give the National Assembly documentation after being asked to do so. The oath of secrecy will further complicate and deny people access to information that is critical for accurate reporting, and unraveling the web of corruption in Nigeria. Presently in the country, a plethora of laws prevent civil servants from divulging official facts and figures, notably the Official Secrets Act which makes it an offence not only for civil servants to give out government information. Further restrictions are contained in the Evidence Act, the Public Complaints Commission Act, the Statistics Act and the Criminal Code, among others.

The law under which civil servants are required not to divulge confidential, classified and state information to third parties, has its roots in the authoritarianism and insecurity of the colonial authorities.

No doubt the presidency has already attracted some forms of disdain to itself in the manner it handled the President's whereabouts for three weeks, and the state of his health, but the latest introduction of the oath of secrecy may be a final onslaught that the President and his handlers are seeking to gag the men and women who by their positions and the nature of their jobs are in a position to be privy to happenings within the Presidential chamber.

It is true that for purposes of national stability and security, countries usually categorise some kinds of official information as "classified", but to introduce oath of secrecy in the country is what Nigerians least expected. Confidentiality may be useful but it has already been taken care of in the Seventh Schedule of the 1999 constitution, without a frontal concern about secrecy.

Lawyers and political parties have taken a swipe at the oath, describing it as illegal and a "wanton disregard" for the rule of law. They argued that the oath of secrecy is a desperate reaction of a government, whose fear and insecurity had compelled it to use the oath taking to suppress the truth and a diversionary approach to cover suspected maladministration and inability to deliver on issues of governance.

Human right lawyer, Mr. Bamidele Aturu , on his part, described the oath-taking as undemocratic, adding that it sends the wrong signal that the present administration would rather want to exclude the people from its activities and thus deny us the right to participate in shaping our nation and lives.

" It is a great irony that a government that insists it has zero tolerance for corruption can fall back on an ancient legislation made by the colonialists in the early 20th century to restrict the flow of information that is so vital to development and democracy. What the government has done is a clear breach of the freedom of those who were made to swear under the Act to express themselves freely as guaranteed by the Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. It is also a breach of our right as a people to know and receive information which is also constitutionally guaranteed.

"Without doubt the Official Secrets Act has no place in our aspiration to build a democratic society. It is an Act that aids corruption and oppression. The only people who will benefit from the Act and the regime of opaqueness in government business are the looters and their cronies. This is another blunder committed by the administration. Would they rather we all swear to this oath, say at midnight on one chosen day? For I cannot see how this oath can be effective without swearing all the cleaners, drivers and messengers in Aso Rock!

"The National Assembly must do its duty and repeal the Act immediately. From the government, we demand no less than an apology for insulting our democratic sensitivity and sensibility. Oath of secrecy by people paid from the public treasury is unacceptable and ridiculous.

The oath taking has also been described as illegal and a "wanton disregard" for the rule of law. A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Niyi Akintola, said it was wrong for the Presidency to administer the oath on political appointees.

His words, "The appointees are not his private staff. The oath of secrecy is normally administered on civil servants as contained in their General Order (G.O.). The political appointees are not civil servants. The only exceptions are the President's personal physicians or lawyers.

"To those professionals, even the rule of their professions enjoin them to maintain some confidentiality. But they are bound by the same rules to disclose, if they are being asked to do something illegal. For instance, if the doctor is asked to carry out an abortion or the lawyer is privy to an illegal act by the President, the appointee is bound to disclose. The immediate effect of the oath of secrecy is that it will hamper the media in the discharge of their constitutional responsibility, which is to hold the government accountable at all times."

Another Lagos-based lawyer, Mr. Festus Keyamo, on his part declared "I condemn the oath taking because government is not a secret cult. By doing this, Aso Rock has been turned into a secret cult."

In his own reaction, Mr. Ebun Adegboruwa, also a lawyer, described the Yar'Adua administration as a cult, adding that the secrecy oath administered on top public servants was unconstitutional. He argued that whereas the President should be seen to support the Freedom of Information Bill before the National Assembly, he is busy administering oath of secrecy on his staff.

The Conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP) views the oath of secrecy administered on the aides of Yar'Adua as a signpost of an emerging dictatorship. "The oath of secrecy administered on officials of the Presidency, ranging from Principal Secretary to cooks, is a freedom in reverse gear for a regime that professes the rule of law; hence an impediment on freedom, the bastion of democracy. The oath, unfortunately confirms the allegation that there is moral crisis of confidence in the presidency, which led to the collapse of the seven-Point-Agenda."

On his part, a public affairs analyst, Mr. Ochereome Nnanna described the oath of secrecy as a conscious or unconscious closure of government business from the glare of the public and the citizenry who elected politicians into legislative and executive chambers of government.

He said what Nigerians are currently experiencing is a slide into greater secret governance, adding that our democracy, rather than becoming more transparent under a 'servant leader' and 'democrat' was being transformed into some kind of Okija Shrine. "We are seeing an increasing conscious or unconscious closure of government business from the glare of the public and the citizenry who were supposed to have elected politicians into legislative and executive chambers of government.

"We are sliding steadily into greater secret governance. Our democracy, rather than becoming more transparent under a 'servant leader' and 'democrat' is being transformed into some kind of Okija Shrine.

"One thing consoles us, though. Aftermaths of the Babangida, Abacha and Obasanjo eras in the Presidency taught us that things done in the secret, especially those things whose secrecy was celebrated in the public arena, are eventually exposed, sometimes with salt and pepper added".

But a Kaduna-based legal practitioner, Barrister Sadau Garba, said there was nothing wrong legally with the oath of secrecy. "Legally speaking, there is nothing wrong in taking oath of secrecy; the presidential aides, by the positions they occupy, have access to vital information that the President might want to keep away from the public. It is a way of saying: I hire you, trust you and don't expect you to reveal some vital information to the public. To me, it is an oath of loyalty," he said.