The objective of the seminar was to facilitate a better understanding of the content of the bill by journalists who would be among the principal users and seek, through them, to engender greater public awareness of the bill and the relevant issues. It was also aimed at emphasizing the overall importance of the bill to civil society and how it could promote transparency and accountability and contribute to the overall development of the country.

The participants were mainly journalists from print and broadcast media houses in the northern part of Nigeria. In all, 22 journalists attended the seminar which had eight sessions of paper presentation, lectures and group discussions. Topics and issues addressed at the seminar ranged from the theoretical, analytical to the professional. The various sessions were facilitated by lawyers, journalists and member of the National Assembly.

In a resolution at the end of the seminar, the participants commended the Media For Democracy group for organizing the seminar and also praised members of the National Assembly, particularly the sponsors of the bill in the House of Representatives, for their interest and support for the Bill.

The participants noted that President Obasanjo’s promise to run an open transparent administration and fight corruption would remain a dream because accountability and transparency in government would not be possible if the government’s books are not open to members of the public, including the media.

They observed that the Code of Conduct for Ministers issued by President Obasanjo to members of his Cabinet as well as the Code of Conduct for Public Officers contained in the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution would be meaningless and unenforceable if citizens have no right of access to information held by the State or its agencies and if no mechanism exists for giving practical effect to the right of freedom of information.

They argued that all over the world, a strong feature of a responsible and responsive government is its ability to enable the citizens and interested individuals to know the happenings in government and that information is not just a necessity, but an essential part of good governance.

They asked that Nigerians should put pressure on the National Assembly and the Federal Government to enact a Freedom of Information Act by asking legislators to support the bill and by prevailing on President Obasanjo to give his assent to the bill when it comes to him for signature, as a mark of his administration’s commitment to transparency and accountability in governance.

The participants noted that the Nigerian press has an important role to play in ensuring that the bill is passed into law by enlightening the government and members of the public on its relevance to the sustenance of the various democratic structures. They also asked the press to ensure the enactment of the bill by focusing on the issues involved in order to generate the necessary public opinion which will further pressurize members of the National Assembly into supporting the bill and passing it into law.

 Back to top

World Press Freedom Day Workshop on Freedom of Information Act

On May 3, 2000, Media Rights Agenda organized a workshop on the Freedom of Information Act in Nigeria, in collaboration with the United Nations Information Centre (UNIC) in Lagos, the   United   Nations   Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) Channel 10.

The one day workshop, which was held as part of activities to mark that year’s World Press Freedom Day, took place at the Peninsula Resort Centre, Ajah, in Lagos State. The principal objective of the workshop was to formulate a plan of action to push for the enactment of the Freedom of Information bill and the outcome was expected to give impetus to the campaign to sensitize legislators and concerned citizens in Nigeria that peace and security can only be built through legal instruments that ensure transparency and accountability in governance.

About 72 participants representing UN agencies in Nigeria, the media, the legal profession, human rights organizations, the Legislature, the Judiciary, academic institutions and international human rights organizations attended the workshop.tc

The brief opening ceremony was chaired by Mr. Lanre Arogundade, Co-ordinator of the International Press Centre in Lagos. He was supported by Mr. Finjap Njinga, Director of the United Nations Information Centre (UNIC); Mr. Emmanuel Apea, UNESCO Director; Mr. Tive Denedo, Acting Executive Director of Media Rights Agenda; Mr. Mohammed Sani Umar, Chief Public Affairs Officer of the National Human Rights Commission; Honourable Ajishola Owoseni, Chairman of Olorunda Local Government Council in Osun State, and Mrs. Dupe Ajayi-Gbadebo, a veteran journalist.

In a welcome address, Mr. Denedo, reminded participants of the burden that secrecy has foisted on the nation, saying that one way of guaranteeing the development of the country is for the government to be transparent, open and accountable through the enactment and implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.

In his remarks, Mr. Njinga said African States and governments should be encouraged to enact and enforce national laws that ensure transparency. He said the UN supports efforts of the media to consolidate the positive changes taking place on the continent and would encourage genuine intervention to promote divergent views in the compressed global village.

In a joint statement by Mr. Kofi Annan, UN Secretary–General; Mr. Koichiro Matsuura, the Director-General of UNESCO; and Mrs. Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was read by Mr. Apea, the UN officials noted the relevance of press freedom to transparency, good governance and the rule of law. They asked all states to ratify the relevant international human rights instruments and scrutinise their domestic legal systems with a view to bringing them in line with international standards governing the right to freedom of opinion and expression.tc "In a joint statement by Mr. Kofi Annan, UN Secretary–General; Mr. Koichiro Matsuura, Director -General of UNESCO, and Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was read by Mr. Apea, the UN officials noted the relevance of press freedom to transparency, good governance and the rule of law. They asked all states to ratify the relevant international human rights instruments and scrutinise their domestic legal systems with a view to bringing them into line with international standards governing the right to freedom of opinion and expression."

The participants rose from the workshop with a 10-point communiqué and an eight point plan of action that should improve the advocacy efforts for the enactment of the bill into law.

Back to top

Advocacy Visits to Government Departments by the National Human Rights Commission

In March 2003, the National Human Rights Commission, working with representatives of civil society organisations, also carried out advocacy visits to key Federal Government departments and agencies in Abuja asking them to support the passage of the bill into law.

The weeklong programme of advocacy visits embarked upon by the Commission began on March 24, with a visit to the management of the National Orientation Agency (NOA).

Mr. Tony Iredia, the Director-General of the Agency and his team of executive directors received members of the advocacy team, led by the Executive Secretary of the National Human Rights Commission, Mr. Bukhari Bello; and which included MRA’s Maxwell Kadiri; Mr. Mike Aruleba of the African Independent Television and RayPower Radio; Mr. Eze Anaba, Deputy News Editor of the Vanguard newspaper and a board member of MRA; Mr. Wale Fapohunda, managing partner of the Legal Resources Consortium; and Mr. Tony Ojukwu, also of the Commission.

Mr. Bello told the NOA officials that the advocacy team was at the Agency to solicit their support for the passage of the bill and expressed the hope that they would use their medium to disseminate information on the bill and sensitise the Executive, members of the National Assembly and the generality of Nigerians on the need for the bill to be passed into law.

This, he said, would facilitate the realization of the country’s dream of having a corruption-free society, where qualitative governance reigns.

Responding, Mr. Iredia pledged the support of his Agency in seeing to the realization of the objective and offered the services of the Agency’s officers in all the local government areas of the country to assist in disseminating the message contained in the bill to Nigerians all over the country.

The advocacy visits continued the next day when the team met with officials of the Broadcasting Organizations of Nigeria (BON), the Voice of Nigeria (VON); and the Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation.

They were received by the Executive Secretary of BON, Mr. Osita Nweke, other top officials of VON and the Ministry of Information who expressed strong support for the initiative on the bill and pledged their willingness to assist in ensuring that the present National Assembly passes the bill into law.

A roundtable discussion session with the public sector on the bill was held on March 26.  Those in attendance included Mrs. Maryam Uwais, a lawyer and wife of the Chief Justice of the Federation; Dr. Nana Tanko, country coordinator for the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA); Mr. Godwin Omole, Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Press Council, and Mr. Bello.

Mr. Kadiri presented a lead paper for discussion at the roundtable session which centred on the theme: “The Context and Content of the Freedom of Information Bill, Which Way Forward.” The presentation was then followed by a panel discussion.

The advocacy visits continued on March 27, when the team met with the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Kanu Agabi (SAN), as well as officials of the Federal Ministry of External Affairs.

At both meetings, the officials said they appreciated the need for the bill and expressed their support for it. They, however, expressed some reservation about what they called the “wide powers” given by the bill to the media, whose conduct, they claimed, had not been above reproach.

Members of the advocacy team explained to them that the bill was not for the media alone but for the generality of Nigerians, arguing that it was crucial for the nation’s emancipation from the shackles of corruption and other corruption-related vices.

Freedom of Information Coalition Meeting with Editors and Political Correspondents

In March 2003, the Freedom of Information Coalition launched a new phase in its campaign to secure the enactment of the bill into law by seeking to introduce the issue into the electioneering campaigns.

Members of the Coalition met in Lagos firstly with editors from the print and broadcast media and subsequently with political correspondents, soliciting their assistance in making the enactment of the bill an electoral campaign issue.

The meetings with editors and political correspondents were organized in the context of the electioneering campaigns towards the 2003 general elections. The main purpose of the meetings was to solicit the support of journalists in ensuring that politicians contesting elections into various offices were required to make public statements on their position on the twin issues of transparency and accountability in government, and also make a commitment to support the efforts to enact the Freedom of Information bill into law.

The meeting with the editors was organized by MRA, on behalf of the Coalition, in collaboration with the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), one of the earliest bodies to endorse the campaign for the freedom of information law in Nigeria.  It was held at the Lagos Airport Hotel in Ikeja.

The meeting was attended by the President of the NGE, Mrs. Remi Oyo, and editors from some major media establishments.  Members of the Coalition present included Mr. Ojo; Mr. Sola Isola, Executive Director of the Independent Journalism Centre (IJC); Mr. Lanre Arogundade, Coordinator of the International Press Centre (IPC); and Mr. Osaro Odemwingie, Coordinator of the Freedom of Information Coalition.  

In an opening address, Mr. Ojo informed the participants that the meeting was necessitated by the need to continue to mobilize support for the enactment of the bill. Tracing its history, he explained that it was one of the very first bills to be sent to the National Assembly at the inception of this government and expressed disappointment at the failure of the National Assembly to pass it after nearly four years, despite the widespread public support for it.

He requested the editors to consider impressing it on their political correspondents and reporters to constantly ask politicians to state their positions on the issue of access to public record, which is at the heart of accountability and transparency.  He noted that in this way, politicians would be sensitized to the existence of the bill and forced to make a commitment to support efforts towards its passage when they assume office.

In her address, Mrs. Oyo noted that the Guild was very much in support of the advocacy for the enactment of the bill into law, explaining that the support of the Guild stemmed from its belief that a Freedom of Information regime will not only serve to strengthen the media, but would also help in consolidating Nigeria’s democracy. 

Following discussions at the meeting, a 17-point agreement was reached by the participants on how to further the campaign for the enactment of the Bill into law.

Some of the agreements include that more professional bodies and associations cutting across all sectors of the society should be encouraged to become involved in the campaign for the enactment of the bill and possibly join the coalition; that journalists would make it a point of duty to use every opportunity to ask politicians to state their positions on the issue of transparency and accountability in government in general and specifically on the enactment of the bill into law.

The meeting with political editors and correspondents, held at the Lagos Travel Inn in Ikeja, followed a similar pattern.

The meeting was attended by scores of political correspondents and reporters from some major media establishments. Members of the Coalition present also included Mr. Ojo, Mr. Isola, Mr. Arogundade, Mr. Odemwingie; and Ms. Lilian Ekeanyanwu, National Coordinator of the Zero Corruption Coalition (ZCC)

Mr. Ojo observed that although it took the National Assembly less than three months to initiate and conclude a process of drafting and passing a new Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act to replace the existing one, the same National Assembly had neglected for nearly four years to pass the Freedom of Information Bill despite the public support for it.

He explained the efforts so far made to secure the enactment of the bill into law and requested the political correspondents and reporters to constantly ask politicians to state their positions on the issue of access to public record.

At the end of the meeting, many of the journalist participants made commitments to work towards the enactment of the bill into law. A 17-point agreement was also reached, many of them similar to those reached at the meeting with editors.

 Back to top

Freedom of Information Coalition Letters to the 30 Political Parties

The Freedom of Information Coalition, acting through its secretariat at Media Rights Agenda, wrote to the chairmen and secretaries of all the political parties as well as their presidential candidates early in April 2003 asking them to make the campaign to secure the right of Nigerians to have access to public records and information a cardinal policy of their parties and asking them to support the enactment of the Freedom of Information bill into law

The letters, signed by MRA’s Executive Director, Mr. Ojo, explained that the Coalition believed that the existence of such a legislation was crucial to entrenching a culture of transparency and accountability in government and in ensuring effective public participation in the democratic process.

He expressed the hope that the party officials and their presidential candidates would work towards ensuring that the right of Nigerians to have access to public records and information becomes a cardinal policy of their parties and that they would make a clear and unequivocal commitment to support the enactment of the Bill into law.

MRA also provided the parties and their candidates with materials on access to information, including copies of the bill, a series of documents giving background information to the bill and a document entitled “The Public’s Right to Know”, published by ARTICLE 19, which sets out the ways in which governments can achieve maximum openness in line with the best international standards and practices.

Mr. Ojo urged them to share the information and documents with other members of their parties.

 Back to top

Media Advocacy

Media campaigns have been a crucial aspect of the advocacy programme. They include visits to media houses to meet with journalists, editors and columnists to solicit support for the campaign through the publication of articles, editorial comments and stories on the freedom of information issue; issuing periodic press releases to highlight developments on the issues; granting of press interviews on the issue; facilitating publication of feature stories and opinion articles.  Media Rights Agenda produced briefing packs for journalists containing materials and information about the bill and freedom of information issues generally.

As a result of these efforts, several newspapers have published editorial comments in support of the bill. Others have published news and feature articles, opinion articles, and other reports on the bill.  The text of the bill has also been published in full in several newspapers as paid advertisements in order to ensure widespread awareness about the bill and its content.

Apart from scores of articles on the Bill that have appeared in many newspapers and magazines, there has also been an impressive use of the broadcast media to sensitise the Nigerian people on the bill and the principles behind it.

Many radio and television stations have held numerous discussion and other programmes where guests have appeared to promote the Bill and explain the principles behind it.

Some of the broadcast station in which MRA personnel, collaborating partners and other guests have appeared to promote the bill and explain its principles include the African Independent Television (AIT) both in Lagos and Abuja, in its Kaakaki programme, a popular breakfast programme; the sister radio stations, RayPower 1 and 2, Minaj Broadcasting International television (MBI), the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) Channel 10 in its Morning Ride programme, another breakfast programme; the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria in Kaduna; the NTA in Kaduna; Murhi International Television (MiTV) in Lagos; Radio Lagos, Degue Broadcasting Network (DBN) television in Lagos, Channels Television in Lagos, etc.

The primary purpose of the media campaigns has been to keep the issue alive in the public domain and create a ground swell of public opinion in favour of a regime of access to information to act as a further pressure for legislative action by the National Assembly.

However, a major challenge in the media advocacy programme has been how to sustain media interest on the issue having regard to the nature of the media which has a tendency to lose interest in an issue once it has been reported a few times.  This challenge was heightened in periods when there were no developments on the bill within the National Assembly or when there was a lull in other advocacy activities.  During such periods, the media found it difficult to publish anything on the bill, as it did not want to be merely repeating previous news items.

This problem was of critical importance because regardless of all other strategies that could be adopted to spread the word about the bill, the fact remained that as a means of mass communication, the media was still the most effective tool for reaching the widest number of people.

In its consultations with journalists and other partners in the campaign for the enactment of the bill, Media Rights Agenda constantly sought advice on the issue.  Various strategies were proposed including suggestions that further workshops and seminars should be organized for journalists, especially those from outside Lagos, so that they can be better educated and enlightened about the bill and the philosophy behind it; those campaigning for the enactment of the bill should regularly pay courtesy visits to various newspapers and magazines to meet with their editorial boards to discuss the bill with them and to appeal to them to focus on the bill in their columns.

. 

Other suggestions were that Media Rights Agenda should liaise with members of the Newspapers Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN) to request them to donate space in their newspapers and magazines for messages on the bill urging the National Assembly to pass it; initiating a signature collection campaign targeted at journalists in addition to members of the society who support the passage of the bill; and formation of a body charged with coordinating the effort to popularize the bill among journalists.

While some of the suggestions achieved some results or had such potential, others could only bring very limited success despite the cost of undertaking them.  For instance, given the huge number of journalists in Nigeria, it was not feasible to attempt to reach a sizeable number of journalists through seminars and workshops, which would in any event, be very expensive to organize.  The challenge therefore remains a live one.

 Back to top
 

Production and Dissemination of Campaign Materials on Freedom of Information

In August 2000, with funding support from the International Human Rights Law Group, Media Rights Agenda printed campaign materials aimed at creating awareness and soliciting public support for the Freedom of Information Bill.  MRA printed 30,000 colour posters, 50,000 handbills titled: “What You Should Know About the Freedom of Information Bill”, and 4,000 copies each of three different types of colour stickers.

The posters contained messages promoting the values and benefits of an open and transparent government to the democratic process and the economy.  The handbills gave highlights of the bill, explaining in more detail its content, purpose and benefits.  It contained information about the bill such as “What is the Freedom of Information Bill?” “Current State of Access to Information in Nigeria”, ‘Benefits of the Freedom of Information Bill”, “Who Can Benefit?” “How Can Nigerians Support the Bill?” etc.  It provided contact information for members of the National Assembly, advising members of the public to write to their representatives in the National Assembly or telephone them with a request that they pass the bill.  The stickers contained messages of support for the bill and transparency in governance generally.

The materials were distributed in major cities in southeastern, south western and the northern part of the country.

  Back to top
 

Building Civil Society Support for the Freedom of Information Bill

Another major challenge in the advocacy for the enactment of the bill has been how to broaden the constituency for support for the campaign, especially among civil society organisations.  A number of initiatives were undertaken to achieve this objective.  Although there is now heightened awareness among non-governmental organisations and other civil society organisations about the bill and expressions of support for the campaigns, it has still not been possible to get such organisations to initiate independent projects and activities around the campaign.  Only a few partner organisations have taken the initiative to embark on follow-up activities or sought to introduce Freedom of Information public enlightenment components and campaigns into their core projects and activities.

There has also been very little success in getting members of the public to become more involved and active in the campaign for the enactment of the bill despite a range of efforts and activities, including the media campaigns, the printing of stickers, posters and handbills which were designed to remove the campaign from an elitist plane, as well as the efforts to get the business community to sign on to the initiative.  These activities have not yielded the level of results that had been expected.

Activities undertaken by Media Rights Agenda and other partner organisations in the attempt to build or strengthen civil society support for the bill and the campaign have included:

Advocacy Training Seminar

An Advocacy Training Seminar was held for representatives of civil society organisations across the country at Amana Suites in Abuja from September 10 to 13, 2000.  The purpose of the seminar was to improve the capacity of civil society organisations to engage the legislative process to ensure that the bill is passed.  It was expected that following the seminar, efforts would be intensified by civil society organisations to push for the passage of the bill, although a secondary objective was an expectation that the knowledge and skills acquired at the seminar would assist the participating organisations in other advocacy efforts and activities.

The seminar was attended by 31 persons representing 21 organisations.  The International Human Rights Law Group, which funded the training, also brought three international experts on freedom of information issues from Europe and the United States to conduct the training.

The seminar discussed in detail issues relating to the bill and sought to equip the participants with ideas and strategies on how to go about canvassing support for it.

First Stakeholders’ Meeting on the Freedom of Information Bill

The very first stakeholders meeting on the Freedom of Information Bill was held at Rockview Hotel in Abuja from September 13 to 15, 2000.  The objective of the meeting was to identify various stakeholders in a freedom of information regime, demonstrate how various sectors of the society, including government institutions and agencies, will benefit from a freedom of information legislation, and agree on how the different stakeholders can support the campaign for the enactment of the bill into law.

The meeting was attended and formally declared open by the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Professor Jerry Gana.  It was attended by 42 persons in all, representing various interest groups, including legislators from the National Assembly, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), the Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation, the United Nations Information Centre (UNIC) in Nigeria, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the NUJ, the Newspapers Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN), the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), human rights NGOs, the media, the legal profession, international organisations and agencies, etc.

Professor Gana made a public declaration on behalf of the Executive to support the bill, the first by any senior member of the Obasanjo administration.  In his remarks, he conceded: “No state, especially a democratic state, can achieve any meaningful development if the citizens do not have access to information about matters that affect their everyday life.  It is, indeed, fundamental in any democratic governance.”

Representatives of various sectors also made brief presentations on how a legal right of access to information would help their work and how they could support the campaigns for the passage of the bill.

It was decided at the meeting that a civil society coalition, known as the Freedom of Information Coalition, be set up to bring collective pressure to bear on the National Assembly to pass the bill and generate public awareness about the principles of access to public information and the need for a legislation giving members of the public a right to government-held information.  The meeting also agreed on other proposals for enhancing the campaign for the enactment of the bill.

 Back to top

Business Roundtable on the Freedom of Information Bill

In May 2002, Media Rights Agenda with the support of the International Human Rights Law Group, organized a Business Roundtable on the Freedom of Information Bill for members of the business community to sensitize them on their role in supporting the bill and ensuring that it is passed into law.

The one-day roundtable was held on May 8, 2002 at the CAPL Training Centre in Ikeja, Lagos.  Briefing materials on freedom of information, including copies of the bill, were sent ahead of the meeting to invited participants to enable them properly familiarize themselves with the issues and make informed contributions during the roundtable.  The meeting was chaired by Mr. Gamaliel Onosode, Chairman of Dunlop Plc.  Other participants came from other sectors of the economy such as banking and aviation while group representatives were sent by Concerned Professionals and the Association of Corporate Affairs Managers of Banks.  Although the turnout was very low, the quality of the discussions was quite high. 

The participants commended the initiative to hold a business roundtable on the bill but, however, suggested that in view of the diverse nature of the business sector in Nigeria, major groups and sub-groups within the sector such as manufacturers, bankers, corporate affairs managers, etc. should to be specifically targeted in any subsequent forum.

They agreed that a regime of freedom of information would be very helpful to the sector as they could obtain information about the state of businesses which would in turn assist in decision making by investors, and planning for developmental purpose.  They were of the view that rather than have a negative impact on businesses, access to information would encourage the spirit of competition.

The participants noted that the prevailing high rate of secrecy governing business transactions in the country and the obvious dishonesty in both private and public sectors were largely responsible for many of the country’s social and economic problems.

But they warned that in campaigning for the enactment of a freedom of information law in Nigeria, the media needs to convince the business community and other sectors of the economy whose support are crucial to the passage of the bill, that it is prepared to abide by its social responsibilities and obligations.  They stressed that the media should use information sensibly and responsibly with a view to promoting good governance and rational national discourse.

At the end of the meeting, the participants made suggestions on how to get the business community to show more interest in the bill while some pledged to assist in the realization of this objective.  Mr. Onosode promised to assist Media Rights Agenda and members of the Coalition to reach the executive members of the Institute of Directors and the Chairman of the Nigerian Economic Intelligence Committee. The President of the Association of Corporate Affairs Managers of Banks, Mr. Kabir Dagogo, pledged to host some representatives of the Coalition at one of the monthly meetings of the association to enable them make a presentation about the bill to the corporate affairs managers of other banks operating in the country.  Concerned Professionals, represented by Mrs. Bimbo Hundeyin, also promised that MRA would be invited to give a briefing to members of the group at one of their meetings.

Despite these contributions and promises, the question of how to galvanise the business community to support the campaign for freedom of information in Nigeria has remained a major problem.

 Back to top

Media Roundtable on the Freedom of Information Bill

In November 2001, Media Rights Agenda organized a media roundtable to properly contextualise the bill.  The need for the meeting arose because the media appeared to be presenting the bill as a tool for the media, thereby sending out wrong signals on the appropriate use of the bill when it becomes law.

The roundtable was also held at the CAPL Training Centre in Ikeja, Lagos.  It took place on November 15.  It was attended by 21 journalists from radio, television, magazine and newspaper establishments.  The participating journalists welcomed the clarification saying that they were also keen not to present the bill in a manner that would generate antagonism for it not only from the National Assembly, but possibly also from people in other sectors of the society who might be worried about the power which the bill will give to the media when it becomes law.

In addition to clarifying the issues which necessitated the holding of the roundtable, it generated a lot of publicity for the bill, especially coming on the heels of the public hearing on the bill held by the House of Representatives a month earlier.  A series of news stories and features on freedom of information were published in newspapers and magazines and aired on radio and television in the days and weeks following the roundtable.

Second Stakeholders’ Meeting on the Freedom of Information Bill

A second stakeholders meeting on the Freedom of Information Bill was held in June 2002, nearly two years after the first meeting held in September 2000.  The meeting which took place on June 25 and 26, at Dayspring Hotel in Abuja, was attended by 34 members of the Freedom of Information Coalition from different parts of the country.

The major reason for the meeting was to examine the implications of the failure of the National Assembly to pass the bill less than one year to the end of the tenure of the current members, especially since no progress had been made on the bill in the House of Representatives for several months.  But an additional reason for the meeting was the need to create a forum for a larger civil society input in the campaign efforts to increase awareness about the bill by creating linkages between the activities of the different civil society organisations and the relevance of the bill to their constituencies.

It had also been intended that the meeting would include an advocacy visit to the National Assembly to launch a renewed phase of the advocacy campaign as a test for a new advocacy team that was to be constituted at the meeting, but this could not take place as the legislators unexpectedly decided to begin their annual vacation on that day.

Participants were of the view that there was an urgent need to devise new strategies for putting pressure on the legislators to work out modalities for passing the bill within a few months before the campaign for re-election began.

Following the concerns expressed by the participants about the delay in the passing of the bill, it was agreed that there was a need to formulate a plan of action that would encompass both short term strategies for securing the enactment of the bill and long term strategies in the event that it is not passed before the end of the tenure of the current National Assembly.

The meeting also provided an opportunity for collaboration between the Freedom of Information Coalition and the Zero Corruption Coalition.

There was an agreement at the meeting that the secretariat of the Freedom of Information Coalition should be strengthened while the advocacy and media committees of the Coalition were given a fresh mandate to increase the advocacy drive for the passage of the bill and a more effective public awareness programme.  The secretariat was to establish and maintain a listserv through which information on the activities of the Coalition and developments regarding the bill would be regularly sent to members.

 Back to top

African Regional Workshop on Access to Information

In September 2001, working with ARTICLE 19 and the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA), Media Rights Agenda held an African regional workshop on Access to Information in Abuja.  The workshop brought together a wide range of NGOs active in human rights, development and the media in sub-Saharan Africa as well as from North America, Europe and Asia.

The workshop, which took place at Rockview Hotel in Abuja, from September 19 to 21, 2001, arose from the need to bring national and sub-regional civil society organisations together to explore the feasibility of establishing a regional freedom of information monitoring network through which advocacy and monitoring strategies could be discussed and strengthened.

The Workshop endorsed a Statement and Plan of Action to promote the right to information as a fundamental human right, to work towards adoption of legislation on freedom of information throughout Africa, and to contribute to a global campaign for this right.

The participants stressed that information is an essential precondition for effective mobilization and the achievement of progressive change at the local, national, regional and global levels.

They noted that the right to information is included within the guarantee of freedom of expression and includes the right to access information held by public authorities; the obligation on government to actively publish and disseminate key categories of information; and the right to truth – for example, about past human rights violations

Besides, they said, the right to information is important because it enables other rights to be realized and is vital to the realisation of social and economic rights and to the fight against poverty more generally.

The participants also observed that meaningful participation in policy formulation and decision-making processes is only possible in the context of respect for the right to information and that the right to information can only be effectively implemented or exercised where there is specific legislation that establishes a fully developed legal and institutional framework that is in line with international standards.

They noted that international solidarity can provide crucial support to a national campaigning strategy on freedom of information and advised campaigners to make use of international and regional instruments, including the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Besides, the participants said, campaigners need to undertake broad public education and awareness-raising programmes and to build a broad coalition of interested and affected groups to advocate for the right to information.

They suggested that campaigners should use progress in the region to pressure their own governments to adopt good freedom of information laws and that in the absence of a government initiative, civil society groups should produce their own draft law.

The participants endorsed the view that the right to information applies to all people and in all contexts across Africa. They insisted, among other things, that:

• it is the right of communities to know how and why money allocated by governments for development in their locality has never reached them;

• it is the right of citizens to know the contents of documents exchanged by their government and international financial institutions such as the World Bank;

• it is the right of victims and their friends and families to know what happened to those who were killed, tortured, “disappeared” or otherwise physically attacked by security forces or other armed groups;

The participants pledged to campaign for the full realization of the right to information as part of the wider struggle for participatory democracy and social justice.  

 Back to top

Civil Society Roundtables and “Public Hearings”

The International Press Centre (IPC) in Lagos organized five civil society roundtables and “public hearings” in four of the country’s geo-political zones and the Federal Capital Territory in 2001 and early in 2002 to expand the scope of the Freedom of Information awareness campaign among civil society groups.

The initiative was undertaken in collaboration with the Media-for-Democracy In Nigeria group (the MFD), which comprises Media Rights Agenda, the Independent Journalism Center and Journalists for Democratic Rights, and was supported by the Democracy and Governance Programme of the United States Embassy in Nigeria.

The Roundtables/Public Hearings were held in Benin City (drawing participants from Edo, Delta and Ekiti States) from December 17 to 18, 2001; Ibadan (drawing participants from Oyo, Lagos, Ekiti and Osun States) from February 26 to 27, 2002; Kaduna (with participants drawn from Kaduna, Kano, Borno, Niger and Kwara States) from May 22 to 23, 2002; Port Harcourt (with participants drawn from Rivers, Enugu, Akwa-Ibom and Anambra States) from June 13 to 14, 2002; and Abuja (with participants from the Federal Capital Territory) from June 18 to 19, 2002.

The main objectives of the exercise were to raise awareness and support for the bill among the civil society organisations, labour, professionals, business community and students; encourage these groups to participate in public hearings and roundtables on the bill; and to get the media interested in the bill.

It was clear from the submissions by many of the participants that there were other segments of the society that felt that a freedom of information law would be more relevant to them more than even the mass media. For example during the Ibadan roundtable, a medical doctor spoke about how the law would empower patients to seek information about the health status of medical personnel taking care of them especially as it concerns the HIV/AIDS pandemic. He said whereas health workers seek to know the HIV/AIDS status of patients, they are denied the information on the status of health workers even though infection or transmission could come either way.

Virtually all the individuals and groups participating in the roundtables expressed their willingness to participate in the campaign for the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act and emphasized the need to involve wider layers of the society. They were also concerned about the low publicity in the media, which they thought should be at the head of the agitations. There were also suggestions that effective advocacy activities should be targeted at the National Assembly to win the support of a majority of its members for the bill. In some of the centers, the groups resolved to constitute themselves into local networks for the campaign as one of the strategies to push for the adoption of the law.

Other strategies suggested include: getting some of the members of the National assembly themselves to become advocates of the bill; getting journalists covering the National Assembly involved in the advocacy of the bill; expanding the base of the campaign to include hitherto uninvolved groups; and making the campaign of the bill more participatory by involving people at the community levels.

All the round tables adopted communiqués that expanded further on these objectives, challenges and strategies for making the campaign successful. They stressed that the local networks would be very helpful in translating the bill and some of the IEC materials into local languages.

 Back to top

The First and Second Reading of the Freedom of Information Bill

The cocktail reception for members of the House of Representatives held at the Abuja Sheraton Hotel and Towers on February 16, 2000, was clearly a huge success and its impact was felt during discussions on the floor of the House on February 22, 2000, when the bill came up for the first reading. There was overwhelming support for the bill from all members of the House of Representatives present that day.  All the members who spoke at the hearing expressed a strong desire to see the bill passed very quickly by the House.

Again, exploiting the rapport which now existed between Media Rights Agenda and members of the House of Representatives as well as staff members of the House, MRA once more discussed with the Rules and Business Committee of the House and the Deputy Clerk on how to ensure a speedy scheduling of the bill for second reading. Their response to this request was quite favourable and the bill was scheduled for a second reading which took place on March 13, 2000, about three weeks after the first reading.

At the second reading, all the members of the House of Representatives who took the floor, spoke in glowing terms about the bill and the House thereupon decided that the bill did not need to go through a public hearing since there was a unanimous decision that it was one legislation that the country needed very urgently. The House thus rose with a resolution that the bill be referred to the Information Committee, then chaired by Honourable Maduako, for the Committee’s review of its contents.  The Committee was to report back to the whole House in a matter of weeks. The Bill was subsequently referred to the Information Committee on March 27, 2000 after the conclusion of the second reading.

Following the referral, the focus of advocacy efforts by Media Rights Agenda now shifted to the members of the Uche Maduako-led Information Committee. Officials of Media Rights Agenda held series of separate meetings with Honourable Maduako and some members of the Committee. In the course of these discussions, MRA officials made available to them copies of documents explaining the fundamentals of freedom of information laws as well as international best practices on Freedom of Information.  Media Rights Agenda also requested international organisations such as ARTICLE 19, to send memoranda to the Committee to help its work.  These documents were given to the members of the Committee to enable them understand fully the concept of Freedom of Information.

Study Tour of the United States and the United Kingdom by Legislators

In the course of their deliberations, the Committee members decided that they needed to undertake a study tour of other more advanced democracies that have freedom of information laws to see how they function.  The committee’s chairman therefore requested the assistance of Media Rights Agenda in making the planned trip.

Media Rights Agenda explained that it did not have the resources to finance such a study tour but offered to make contacts with notable Freedom of Information advocacy groups in the United Kingdom, the United States and South Africa and secure appointments for them in those countries if the National Assembly could finance the trips.  Media Rights Agenda thereafter contacted the Public Affairs Section of the United States Embassy, which agreed to organise some meetings for them in the United States.  The organisation similarly contacted ARTICLE 19, its partner in the United Kingdom, which also agreed to meet with the legislators and organise other meetings for them.

The study tour suffered some delay, as the National Assembly did not immediately have the resources to finance the trips.  However the committee members were eventually able to undertake the trip and travelled to the U.S. and the U.K, where they met with representatives of such organisations as ARTICLE 19 in London and Freedom House in New York, among others.

Upon his return, the Committee chairman, Honourable Maduako, told staff members of Media Rights Agenda that the Committee members found the trip very educative and enlightening and thanked the organisation for its assistance in arranging some of the meetings.  He also acknowledged that from the various discussions they had while abroad, they found out that the Freedom of Information bill pending before them was very rich in content and had taken care of a lot of the problems that most other countries had encountered in the course of trying to implement their Freedom of Information laws.

He said the Committee would only propose one or two modifications in the bill, especially with respect to the fees payable by applicants, which the organisation had proposed should either be free or subsidised, depending on the circumstances. Honourable Maduako said his committee would be recommending, based on the outcome of its field study, that except in certain special cases, applicants should be required to pay the actual cost necessary for making the information they are requesting available to them.

The Committee concluded its assignment and submitted its report to the relevant officials of the House of Representatives on July 25, 2000.

 Back to top

 Advocacy Work at the Senate

Despite the remarkable progress that the bill had now made in the House and the assurance received from the leadership of the House that the bill would be passed in the shortest possible time, Media Rights Agenda did not dismantle advocacy work on the bill.  Rather, it decided to expand the focus of its advocacy work to include members of the Senate. This decision was informed largely by the belief that the bill would now pass swiftly through the House of Representatives and that there was therefore a need to create a receptive frame of mind in the Senators ahead of the arrival of the bill in their chamber.

Consequently, officials of the organisation commenced a “door-to-door” enlightenment campaign on the Freedom of Information bill for Senators.

This exercise involved having one-on-one discussions with Senators either in their offices or their homes, depending on which venue they preferred. However, it should be pointed out that unlike their colleagues in the House of Representatives, most of the Senators were not favourably disposed towards members of the advocacy team meeting them in their homes to hold discussions focused on the bill.  As a result of this, a majority of the meetings took place in their offices at the National Assembly complex.

These advocacy visits, like the previous ones carried out in the House of Representatives, was done in phases. Consequently, during the first phase of this advocacy exercise in the Senate, the advocacy team from Media Rights Agenda met with 30 Senators in all. Of this number, except for a few of them such as Senator Arthur Nzeribe, Senator Gbenga Aluko and Senator Patrick Osakwe, who were non-committal and preferred to wait until the bill was referred to them from the House of Representatives, all the others expressed their willingness to support it.  They included Senator M.T. Mbu, Senator Martins Yellowe, Senator Adolphus Wabara, Senator Fajimi, Senator D. Saror, Senator Femi Okurounmu, Senator Rowland Owie, Senator Matori, Senator Ishaq Mohammed, and Senator Tokunbo Afikuyomi. 

In fact, Senator Owie, the only Senator that agreed to meet the advocacy team at home, and who was then the Chief Whip in the Senate, promised to use his leadership position and close contact with Senator Tafida, the then Chair of the Senate Rules and Business Committee, as well as with the then Senate President, Senator Chuba Okadigbo, to get the Senate to give the bill accelerated hearing. The level of support received by members of the advocacy team from this first time discussion with the respective Senators was quite impressive and rather unexpected, going by the negative public perceptions about the Senate.

The Crisis in the National Assembly and its Effect on the Bill

However, the momentum which the bill appeared to have gained in its run through the House of Representatives suffered a set back when the crisis at the National assembly set in around May 2000.  Although the crisis in the National Assembly was alleged to have been instigated by President Obasanjo in his effort to weaken the Legislature and maintain control over its leadership, it created deep divisions within each chamber of the National Assembly.

Media Rights Agenda was helpless in the circumstance because while the crisis persisted the business of lawmaking for which the legislators were elected, took a back seat.  No bill pending before the National Assembly during this period escaped from this unsavoury situation.

However the fate of the Freedom of Information bill was worsened by the fact that the lead sponsors of the bill found themselves playing leadership roles on different sides of the political divide in the crisis, which had the effect of making them political enemies.  Thus, they could not have any meaningful discussion on how to push for the passage of the bill and it is doubtful whether the issue of the bill was top on their agenda at all at this time.

Members of the advocacy team also regularly faced the challenge of how to respond, as they were frequently being asked, during their advocacy visits to the National Assembly to follow on the progress of the bill, on whose side they stood in the on-going leadership crisis at the House of Representatives.

While Honourable Anyanwu was leading the pack of legislators in the House of Representatives, calling for a change of leadership in the House, Honourable Irabor was, on the other hand, one of the highly visible and very strong supporters of the Speaker and fought for his continued stay in office. The battle for supremacy between both camps persisted for several months.

In the course of the leadership crisis, Honourable Anyanwu requested for the financial records of the House in order to substantiate his claim of financial recklessness and impropriety against its leadership. His request was turned down, but this was interpreted in many quarters as a lack of commitment on the part of the leadership of the House to the principles of access to public records, on which the issue of Freedom of Information is founded.

Despite the fact that the business of lawmaking was greatly affected by the crisis of leadership in the House of Representatives, Media Rights Agenda continued to make strenuous efforts to push for a third and final reading of the bill in the House.  When it became aware that the Information Committee of the House had concluded its assigned task of reviewing the bill and preparing its report in readiness for submission to the entire House at any of its plenary sessions, Media Rights Agenda again made overtures to officials of the Rules and Business Committee, which was now chaired by Honourable Ita Enang, although in an acting capacity, as Honourable Elayo had been appointed Minister of State in the Federal Ministry of Justice.

The whole purpose of the overtures to Honourable Enang and his colleagues on the Rules and Business Committee was to get them to schedule the bill for what would have been its third and final reading, in accordance with the provisions of the rules of the House regarding the conduct of legislative business.

After several efforts to track down Honourable Enang in Abuja failed, an official of Media Rights Agenda had to travel to his home base in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, to meet with him and discuss the scheduling of the bill for third reading.  He was finally able to track down Honourable Enang at a sporting recreational facility in Uyo after a visit to both his house and office proved unsuccessful.

At the meeting, Honourable Enang promised to schedule the bill for the third reading on his return to Abuja the following week. The promise raised MRA’s hopes that a successful end to the bill’s sojourn in the House of Representatives was in sight.

However, this hope was dashed as the bill again suffered a series of setbacks. Although Honourable Enang kept his promise and included the bill in the order paper of the House as one of the bills that the legislators were to discuss that week, the legislators never got to that item on the agenda in the order paper as they gave priority consideration to what they termed “urgent matters of national importance”, that needed to be dealt with speedily. The effect of this development was that the members of the House did not consider the bill that week.

This became a pattern with the bill for some time thereafter because on two other occasions when MRA was able to again secure the cooperation of officials of the Rules and Business Committee to schedule the bill for third reading, on each occasion the members were never able to take the Information Committee’s report on the bill due to their desire to “give urgent consideration to other issues of urgent national importance”.

Besides these difficulties that the bill faced in the House, another problem, which further slowed its progress in the House, was the incessant changes of the chairmen and members of various committees of the House by its leadership. There were reports that the frequent changes were done to enable the leadership of the House retain the loyalty of members in the light of the face-off between the Executive and the Legislature and the perception that the Presidency was trying to destabilise the National Assembly by using members to undermine its leadership.

Regardless of the reasons for the frequent changes, the work of the Information Committee of the House on the bill was seriously affected by this development. For instance, just before the then chair of the Information Committee, Honourable Maduako, could formally present the Committee’s report on the bill to the entire House, he was removed from office and replaced with Honourable Chijioke Edeoga. On assumption of office, Honourable Edeoga requested that he be given sufficient time to study and review the content of the report before taking any further step with regard to presenting it to the full House.

This process of Honourable Edeoga studying the bill took some time. However during this process, officials of Media Rights Agenda contacted him constantly to find out the state of affairs regarding his plans for presenting the report to the House.

After a series of fruitless meetings held with Honourable Edeoga on different occasions, officials of Media Rights Agenda expressed their dissatisfaction to him over the inability of the committee to present its report to members of the House more than one year after the bill was consigned to the Committee for scrutiny.

With unyielding pressure from Media Rights Agenda and reported insistence of the Speaker that all committees with outstanding reports should submit them to the Rules and Business Committee for scheduling on the order paper, the Honourable Edeoga-led Information Committee secured the scheduling of the third reading of the bill and consideration of the Committee’s report for March 15, 2001, a year after the bill went through its second reading in the House.

 Back to top

The Third Reading of the Freedom of Information Bill

When Media Rights Agenda became aware of the date for the third reading of the bill and consideration of committee report, an official of Media Rights Agenda travelled to Abuja ahead of the appointed date. With the assistance of Mr. Yinka Oduwole, the Special Adviser on Media Affairs to the Deputy Speaker of House of Representatives, who played an important role in the advocacy efforts in the House of Representatives for the enactment of the bill into law, a meeting was arranged with the Deputy Speaker for the morning of March 15, 2001.  Incidentally, the Deputy Speaker was to chair the day’s session in the House.

At this meeting, the Deputy Speaker gave assurance that with him piloting the discussions on the floor of the House that day, the bill would have no problem sailing through its third reading very smoothly. He thus asked the MRA official to be present at the public gallery to witness this epoch making proceeding of the House.

This early morning meeting with the Deputy Speaker proved to be the saving grace for the bill because but for the presence of the Deputy Speaker and his desire to see the bill passed, that day would have marked the end of the bill in the House of Representatives.

At the day’s proceedings in the House, Honourable Edeoga presented the Information Committee’s report to the House and the legislators commenced the process of scrutinising the content of the report and the bill.  From the comments they were making and the questions they were asking, it became clear to members of the public, including the official from Media Rights Agenda who were observing the proceedings from the gallery, that quite a number of the members of the House present were no longer interested in the bill or were determined to prevent the House from passing it into law, a sharp contrast from the situation during the first and second reading a year earlier. This development was very surprising given the overwhelming support that the bill enjoyed from the entire membership of the House during its first and second reading.

For anyone who had no previous information about the progress of the bill in the House of Representatives, he or she would probably have the impression while observing the trend of the discussions on that day that many of the legislators had never heard of the bill and were just seeing it for the first time, during this third reading, especially judging from the kind of questions that some of them were asking.

Things came to a head when a legislator asked if the bill ever went through the process of a public hearing at the National Assembly. At this point, Honourable Edeoga, seeking to extricate himself from the trenchant criticism of the bill and the Committee’s report by members of the House, sought the permission of his colleagues to excuse himself from making further comments and instead invited the former chairman of the Committee, Honourable Maduako, to explain the sequence of events that culminated in the preparation of the report, which he (Honourable Edeoga) presented to the House.

On taking the floor, Honourable Maduako gave an account of the process that the bill had undergone in the National Assembly, including explaining that it was the decision of the entire membership of the House in session, that considering the objectives of the bill and the widespread support that it enjoyed from the legislators during its first two readings, there was no need for it to go through a public hearing. Thus, the committee by not organising a public hearing on the bill was only giving effect to this unanimous decision of the House.

He also explained the painstaking work that the committee members had done in the process of reviewing the bill, including conducting an international comparative analysis of other Freedom of Information laws the world over and distilling international best practices from them.  He also informed the House of the Committees’ visit to other countries to interact with groups that had been in the vanguard of advocating for the enactment of freedom of information laws in such countries and those that were implementing existing Freedom of Information laws in such countries. All these, he said, helped the committee in putting together the report that was being considered by the House.

Considering the fact that the dominant feeling in the House during the session was not in favour of passing the bill and realising that some legislators were now of the opinion that the earlier unanimous decision of the House exempting the bill from a public hearing was erroneous, the Deputy Speaker, in the bid to save the bill from being killed, tactically summarised the discussion by stating that from his vantage position, the critical issue was that of the propriety or otherwise of the earlier decision taken by the House to exempt the bill from a public hearing. He therefore decided that the best way to go in the circumstance was to call for a voice vote on the issue.

The voice vote was called and the result as announced by the Deputy Speaker, was to the effect that there was a new agreement that the Information Committee should go back and organise a public hearing on the bill.

In a subsequent discussion with the Deputy Speaker after the close of proceedings in the House on that day, he explained to the MRA official that he took that line of action because of his perception of the dominant feeling during deliberations on the floor of the House, which appeared to be against the passage of the bill. With the referral of the bill back to the Committee to conduct a public hearing, those in support of the bill would have an opportunity to prove with empirical evidence that the generality of Nigerians were desirous of having a Freedom of Information Act and this would help in re-converting the group of legislators who had now made a volte-face on the bill.

 Back to top

Preparations for the Public Hearing on the Bill

With the developments on the floor of the House on March 15, 2001, Honourable Edeoga attempted, in a discussion with MRA, to justify his earlier tardiness in presenting the Information Committee’s report on the bill to the House when he took over chairmanship of the Committee, by alluding to what he termed a feeling of suspicion within the membership of the House regarding issues concerning the Freedom of Information bill.

Although many were disappointed with Honourable Edeoga’s presentation of the Committee’s report to the House and his lack of adequate defence of it during deliberations on the floor of the House, Media Rights Agenda refrained from blaming him for his handling of the matter and the outcome.  It immediately began discussions with him on what steps he planned to take to organise the public hearing as directed by the House. In response to the enquiry, Honourable Edeoga said he would consult other members of the Committee to work out the modalities for organising the public hearing and requested that the MRA official should check back with him in two weeks to get confirmation on decisions reached by members of the Committee.

After several weeks of waiting with no sign of progress being made towards organising the public hearing, Media Rights Agenda again contacted Honourable Edeoga and his colleagues in the Committee to find out the situation on the planned public hearing. The indications were that the National Assembly did not have the money to conduct the public hearing.

This became a standard response to all MRA’s enquiries about the public hearing creating the impression that it had become a convenient excuse to keep the Freedom of Information bill in the cooler forever. It also appeared to confirm the suspicion of many members of the public who believed that despite their public statements declaring support for the bill and promising to ensure that it was passed into law quickly, the leadership of the House was not really interested in the fate of the bill.

Faced with the reality that the public hearing might not hold if this situation persisted, officials of Media Rights Agenda enquired from the leadership of the House Information Committee if there was any way in which the organisation could assist the Committee in organising the public hearing.

The Committee initially requested that Media Rights Agenda should assist by advancing a loan to the Committee to organise the public hearing with a promise that the Committee would pay back the loan when it receives its working capital earmarked for the exercise from the leadership of the House.

After reviewing the budget for the public hearing submitted to it by the Committee, Media Rights Agenda contacted the International Human Rights Law Group, which was then supporting most of its advocacy work on the bill, with a request that some of the funds outstanding in its grant to MRA for advocacy work on the bill be used in helping the Committee to organise the public hearing by bearing some of the costs of holding the public hearing such as the placement of advertisements in the media as well as facilitating the participation of some individuals and representatives of some organisations who wished to make presentations at the public hearing.  The Law Group agreed to this request. 

Media Rights Agenda then began a process of discussions with Honourable Patrick Ene-Okon, one of the staunch supporters of the bill in the House and Chairman of the Media Sub-Committee of the Information Committee.  His sub-committee had been assigned the responsibility of organising the necessary logistics for organising the public hearing.  MRA informed Honourable Ene-Okon, that the organisation was not in a position to advance the entire amount requested by the Committee either as a loan or in any other form, but that it could, within the limits of its resources, cover some of the Committee’s costs for organising the public hearing by paying directly for some of the services that the Committee required to successfully organise the public hearing.

Some of the services which Media Rights Agenda paid for in accordance with this agreement included the production and placement of advertisements in several national daily newspapers and weekly news magazines to announce the public hearing, paying for the transportation, accommodation and subsistence of all the participants who came from outside Abuja to attend the public hearing or make presentations, providing refreshments for participants at the public hearing, etc.

Media Rights Agenda also produced radio and television jingles to publicise the public hearing.  The jingles were aired on RayPower Radio and the Africa Independent Television (AIT), Radio Lagos, the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) Channel 10, DBN Television, Channels Television, and on a cable satellite station, Disc Television.

At the Committee’s request, Media Rights Agenda also bore the cost of an independent legal consultant engaged by the Committee to sit throughout the deliberations at the public hearing. The legal consultant was also to produce an independent report on the deliberations at the public hearing, which would include all the points canvassed by the speakers at the event, a summary of the highlights of their presentations, and the recommendations agreed upon by parties at the public hearing.  An Abuja-based lawyer, Mr. Humphrey Ehi Uwaifoh, was subsequently engaged as independent legal consultant.

 Back to top

The Public Hearing on the Freedom of Information Bill

The Public Hearing on the Freedom of Information Bill was held at Committee Room 2 of the House of Representatives at the National Assembly Complex in Abuja from Wednesday, October 3 to Thursday, October 4, 2001.  It was intended as a process of enabling a broad section of Nigerians to make inputs into the bill and to determine the level of public support which the bill enjoyed.  It was attended by people from many sectors of the society, including a delegation from the Deaf and Dumb Association.

The public hearing was declared open by the Deputy Speaker of the House, Honourable Chibudom Nwuche, who represented the Speaker, Honourable Umar Ghali Na’Abba. Honourable Nwuche emphasized that the importance of the bill necessitated the House sending it back to the Information Committee for the purpose of organising a public hearing.  But he was confident that the enactment of the bill would put Nigeria in an enviable position in the comity of nations.

After the opening ceremony, 14 different speakers presented papers. After each presentation, there was a general discussion. The presentations raised issues of law, journalism and media, national security, culture, international relations, good governance, and best practices as they relate to a freedom of information regime.  Some of the papers dealt with the travails of the press during the period of military dictatorship. They stressed the importance of the press to the survival of democracy, particularly considering the obligation imposed on the press by Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution.  But the main focus of some of the presentations was on the benefits of the bill and the imperative of passing it rather than a technical look at the legal provisions of the bill. This was left to the legal draftsmen to undertake.

A synopsis of some of the presentations are as follows:

Mr Anthony Idigbe (SAN) 

He raised the following observations:

1.   There was no central organization charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of the bill. He, therefore, suggested the creation of a National Information Centre to be placed under the Attorney-General of the Federation to perform this function.

2.   He suggested the funding of access to information to enable indigent citizens enjoy the benefits of the bill. He advocated the award of cost to cover legal practitioners fees.

3.   He advocated the strengthening of the reporting procedures in the bill in line with his suggestion on the establishment of the National Information Centre. 

4.   He also suggested the curtailment of the right of foreigners to access information in Nigeria. During comments, the view was that this suggestion negates the trend in other jurisdictions and that it will create a situation where foreigners will have to go through proxies, which will not be good for the transparency culture which the country is trying to foster through the introduction of the law. It was argued that in many ways, foreigners often have more information than the citizens of the country and in respect of sensitive information and there were already adequate safeguards in that regard.

5.   He finally raised the question whether the National Assembly could make laws for the states. He argued that by the provisions of Section 22 and Item 60 of the Exclusive Legislative List, the National Assembly has the power to make the law as regards the Access to Information.

Mr. Kehinde Bamigbetan, Centre for Legislative Studies

In his presentation, he re-emphasized the desirability of the bill. But he was concerned with the phrase “reasonable standard charges” for document searches and review. He also suggested that there was a need to review the grounds for refusing disclosure in the bill.

Mr. Tunde Fagbohunlu, Media Rights Agenda

His presentation gave a comparative analysis of countries that have similar laws or are in the process of enacting same. It also listed what he perceived to be the functional value of the bill which includes transparency and accountability, democratic participation, education and empowerment, research and development. It was his contention that if the Anti-corruption crusade must succeed there is the need to pass the Freedom of Information bill.

Mr. Azubuike Ishiekwene, Nigerian Guild of Editors

This Presentation gave an overview of media censorship in Nigeria. Decree No 4, 1984 enacted by the Buhari/Idiagbon regime which criminalized truth and led to the jailing of Tunde Thompson  and Nduka Irabor. The killing of Dele Giwa, the incarceration of Kunle Ajibade, George Mbah and others, and the proscription of media outlets.  He emphasized the imperative of the bill. He listed some legal enactments which militate against the media, including the Newspapers Act 1917; Press Registration Act, 1933; Defamation Act, 1961; as well as provisions in the Penal Code and the Criminal Code, such as Sections 50 and 51 dealing with sedition, Sections 373 to 379 on criminal defamation, etc.

The benefit of passing the bill was given as the complete mobilization of the populace for effective participation in governance; inculcation of transparency in governance and the strengthening of democratic cultures and values.

Mr. Bankole Aluko (SAN)

His presentation concentrated on the enforcement mechanisms of the bill. He cited Section 2 (definition of court) and argued that it gives the impression that the bill is applicable only to information kept at the State High Court or Federal Court.  Besides, he said, although judicial review is to be held summarily, the bill did not define the word summarily.  He called for the inclusion of provisions for recovery of litigation cost to deter unnecessary refusal of access. During questions and answers, he suggested that provisions should be made conferring original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, considering the snail pace of the courts. The question that arose was the cost of getting counsel to appear at the Supreme Court, the brief filing system and the location of the court.

 Back to top

The Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation

The Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation supported the bill.  It made the following observations:

a.   Newspaper should be added to Section 2 (d).

b.   Section. 4 (a-p), and Section 8 (b) were too stringent.

c.   Minimum fees should be imposed for access to make it easy and non-expensive.

The Ministry commended the initiators of the bill and urged that it should be passed urgently.

Mr. Odia Ofeimun

He traced the struggle of the Nigerian press and the heroic role they played during the dark days of military rule. He re-echoed the imperatives of the bill and asked that the National Assembly quickly pass the bill.

Mr. Abdul Oroh, Civil Liberties Organisation

He aligned with other speakers, traced the travails of the media and what they have passed through in the hands of security agents. He was emphatic that the anti-corruption crusade will amount to nothing if there is no access to information as it is the essence of transparency. He argued that the bill will provide essential information on government activities. It will also reinforce the right to freedom of speech and the press as contained in Article 19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution.

Mallam Sanni Zorro

He praised the initiators of the bill and said it was not only necessary to the media but to all citizens as it is capable of ensuring the participation of the mass of the populace in the process of governance.

Mr. Ray Ekpu, Newspapers Proprietors Association of Nigeria

He commended the bill and said the NPAN was throwing its weight behind it.  He talked about the general imperatives of the bill and called for its passage. He was concerned that there were so many exemptions to disclosure and urged that the legal draftsmen should take a further critical look at this area.

Professor Ralph Akinfeleye, Department of Mass Communications, University of Lagos

He commended the bill and urged that the time frame for response, which is 7 days, be reduced. He suggested 48 hours at the maximum. To him, with the space of what is news increasingly being narrowed, it is imperative to have quick access. He wanted the National Assembly to strictly limit the right to refuse access.

Mr. Lanre Arogundade, International Press Centre

His presentation focused on why access is important to the media, which includes, enhancing the quality of public debate, transparency and tolerance in the society because it is the media that the populace look up to for ideas, thoughts and opinions, while journalism remains a catalyst for change. Access to information, he said, will also enhance the credibility of reports in the media over which there have been a lot of complaints.  He also stated that access is necessary to the society because it provides information on all facets of governmental affairs and activities. While to the different branches, it will provide information on their different activities to enable checks and balances, and also build a harmonious relationship between the arms of government.

Letters to Principal Officers of the House of Representatives

For months after the public hearing, no progress was made by the bill at the House of Representatives despite repeated public statements in the media by various legislators affirming the importance of the bill and insisting that it would be passed by the National Assembly.  Representatives of Media Rights Agenda and of various member organisations of the Freedom of Information Coalition made frequent enquiries from members of the Information Committee of the House, but got no indication on why the bill had not been presented to the full House for a further Third Reading.

In November 2002, Media Rights Agenda wrote formally to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Alhaji Umar Ghali Na’Abba, and the Chairman of the House Committee on Information, Honourable Lawan Farouk.  In the letter to the Speaker, Media Rights Agenda reminded him of his statement at the inception of the 2002 legislative calendar, listing the Freedom of Information Bill as one of the bills deserving urgent attention and speedy passage by the House of Representatives. 

The letter expressed concern that as the first term of the administration was drawing to a close, members of the FOI Coalition were concerned that despite the Speaker’s public statement of the positive commitment of the House to the bill, it might not be passed in the end as it had not been slated for a third reading more than one year after the public hearing.

Tracing the history of the bill in the House of Representatives, the letter appealed to the Speaker to do all in his power to ensure its speedy passage by the House, saying that by so doing, he would be leaving a legacy which even Nigerians yet unborn will feel proud of.

In a similar letter to Honourable Farouk, Media Rights Agenda reminded him that the public hearing which was organised by his Committee on October 3 and 4, 2001, attracted impressive participation and contributions from members of the society drawn from various walks of life including the academia, labour, the legal profession, civil rights groups, the journalism profession, and other sectors of the society, all urging for its speedy passage.

It noted that since the public hearing, no further word on the bill or the report of his Committee had been heard.

The letter appealed to him to ensure that the Committee’s report was submitted as soon as possible so that the Rules and Business Committee of the House could slate the bill for the Third Reading. 

Neither the Speaker nor Honourable Farouk responded formally to the letters.  But in several subsequent telephone conversations and direct meetings with representatives of Media Rights Agenda and other members of the Freedom of Information Coalition, Honourable Farouk promised that as Chairman of the Information Committee, he would present the report to the full House before the end of its tenure and would work to ensure the passage of the bill.

Despite often repeating this promise for months afterwards, in the final weeks of the life of the National Assembly, Honourable Farouk became pre-occupied with his campaign to become Speaker of the House after the April 12, 2003 National Assembly elections and was unable to give any attention to the bill.