Daily Independent (Lagos)
Dianam Dakolo
9 October 2008
opinion
I have no problem with the FoI Bill. But libel for instance has to be a criminal offence. If you do not do that, it is like saying give us freedom to do what we want to do. The nation needed to approach any law on freedom of information with great caution. -David Mark, Senate President of Nigeria (in September, 2008)
The dramatics triggered in the House of Representatives and in the Senate by the presentation of the Freedom of Information (FoI) Bill have been quite revealing, dispelling whatever illusions Nigerians ever had about the democratic orientation of the men and women who populate our legislature at the highest level. On April 29 (2008), uproarious scenes were recorded in the House as the Bill was to be tabled, with most members agitatedly denouncing the proposed law and shouting down its sponsors who, incidentally, rank among the brightest, most forthright and principled in the House. That Bill had been duly listed on the Order Paper, but as was the case on six previous occasions, the legislators were unprepared to accept it for consideration. Again, on May 29, the Bill was thrown out.
Speaker Dimeji Bankole was later to boastfully declare to leaders of civil society and human rights groups promoting the Bill that the House would not be stampeded and that at the appropriate time his colleagues would peruse the contents of the Bill and provide a piece of legislation suitable to Nigeria's circumstances. That was not all. The Speaker, apparently oblivious of the fact that his not-so-impressive resume is well known and that any of his guests from the Freedom of Information Coalition could competently tutor him on all issues encapsulated in the Bill, proceeded to pontificate highlighting what society expects of media practitioners and limits that must be observed in the course of their operations.
The Senate, for its part, maintained what seemed a dignified silence on the subject, a posture interpreted by some as suggestive of understanding and a favourable disposition. When its leadership had cause to advert to the proposed law, the comment was terse: "We will pass the Bill." It sounded like an assurance that the Bill, as passed by the last dispensation of the National Assembly and forwarded to the immediate past dictator in the Presidency, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo (who, of course, refused his accent), would receive automatic passage again. Months later, Senate President David Mark, a protÈgÈ of Obasanjo and preserver of the latter's political legacy, began to pick holes in the provisions of that Bill and to hint that some re-working was necessary to limit the potential for havoc to the Nigerian State. Emphasising the need "to approach any law on freedom of information with great caution," he noted that "there is no nation that has not got a level of restriction because there are issues that are of national importance and you cannot just go ahead and be disclosing them."
What Mark and the rest of the Senate leadership deem appropriate for Nigeria was incorporated (by a Senate committee) in Section 2 of the amended version of the Bill, which is to be presented for deliberation. The section reads in part: "Every citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has a legally enforceable right to, and shall, on application, be given access to any information or record under the control of a government or public institution or private companies performing public functions, provided the disclosure of such information or release of such record(s) shall not compromise national security and that the applicant shall have satisfied a State or Federal High Court of the need for the disclosure of such information or release of such record(s)."
Just how hypocritical and dubious the drafters of this amendment are is suggested by the patently conflictive propositional contents of the main clause ("Every Citizen...public functions") and the proviso-type dependent ("provided the disclosure...and that the applicant shall ... such records"). The amendment begins (in the main clause) by perfectly capturing the prayer of the promoters of the original Bill and then adds the nullifying proviso, which renders that "legally enforceable right" well-nigh unrealisable. That is the way of deceivers everywhere in the world: to project a faÁade of wholesomeness within which is masked a sting. How practicable is it for someone who requires information from a government agency to first make a case for it in court and satisfy a judge of his need for it? What the Senate is formulating as legislation for Nigeria is akin to doctrinal concoctions of agents of the Devil (fake religious figures and organisations): a load of theological gibberish with a sprinkling of spiritual truths.
Senate President David Mark who, by my assessment, represents almost everything that is wrong with democracy in this country, betrayed his ignorance of the provisions of the original Bill when he argued that "there are issues that are of national importance and you cannot just go ahead and be disclosing them." The Bill packaged by Media Rights Agenda (MRA) and its collaborating agencies, and passed by the last National Assembly, clearly acknowledges that and makes for such exclusion. Even America's Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) does not allow for every type of information to be released on request, as there are records categorised into nine exemptions and three exclusions. So, what point was Mark trying to make other than merely voicing the fears of the decadent order he appears to represent? Such fears were confirmed by Senator Ayogu Eze, who chairs the committee working on the Bill, when he told journalists that the amendment was to "ensure that nobody can use it (the law) to hold the country to ransom." By "the country," of course, is meant a class of people - the looters of our public treasuries and crooked manipulators of the democratic system - that is well known to Nigerians.
The deluge of criticisms that have greeted this act of betrayal by the Senate is heart-warming because it reflects the wide acceptability enjoyed by the FoI Bill and the shared conviction that a turnaround is still possible for our country, if appropriate statutes and structures are in place and citizens muster the necessary courage for constructive action. The National Assembly, comprised of men and women who fancy themselves as "honourable" and dedicated to the well-being of our country, have failed the test presented by the proposed legislation. Their pretentiousness, long manifested through their exceeding greed and lack of interest in advancing constitutionalism, has been thrown into bold relief by their slip over the proposed law. The FoI Bill is the touchstone: it has established conclusively that those parading as democrats and lawmakers in the Nigerian clime of today are not only fake, but a threat to the democratic enterprise.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Daily Independent. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
