Comments on Recommendations by the House Committee on Information

Section 1 - Short Title

The Committee’s recommendation in this regard should be amended to read “Access to Public Records and Information Act.” This would more appropriately capture the spirit and letter of the law, as well being more in consonance with the explanatory note on the cover page of the bill.

Section 2 - Interpretation

The definition of court as contained in the Committee’s recommendation is highly erroneous. This is because the expression “court” as used in the bill cannot be defined to mean       anywhere the official information is kept. On the contrary the records referred to in the bill are those kept by any organ/agency of the three tiers of government. Consequently we      propose that the definition given to the expression “court” as stated in the bill contained in the Official Gazette should be retained.

The definition of Public/Government Institution as stated in the bill contained in the Official Gazette being more expansive in scope than the Committee’s recommendation, should be retained.

The definition of public record as stated in the Official Gazette version of the bill should be retained because it is much more encompassing than that which is stated in the Committee’s recommendation.

The Committee’s recommendation regarding what photographic material would qualify as public record should be retained because although it is identical to what is contained in           the Official Gazette version of the bill, it goes a little further by correcting a slight anomaly in the spelling of the word “device” as stated in the original version in the Gazette.

The definition of “person” in the version of the bill contained in the Official Gazette, being more elaborate than that contained in the committee’s recommendation, should be retained.

The definition of the expression “personal information” as stated in the Official Gazette version of the bill should be retained because it is more appropriate, especially when viewed against the background of the focus of the bill. Moreover, the Committee’s recommendation in this wise is too broad in scope and cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed the proper definition of personal information, as it would amount to an attempt to bring a lot of otherwise public information within the realm of personal information in other to facilitate their exclusion from the ambit of records to which an applicant is allowed access under the terms of this draft legislation

The definition of “Public Officer” as contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill should be retained in place of the Committee’s recommendation because it is more expansive in scope.

Section 3 - Right of Access to Information

3(1) Save for changing the expression “every person” as stated in the version of the bill contained in the Official Gazette, to “any person” the Committee’s recommendation here in is a reproduction of what is contained in the official gazette.

3(2) The provision contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill being more appropriate on this point than the Committee’s recommendation, should be retained in place of the latter.

3(3) The provision contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill by virtue of its being more clear cut and detailed should be retained. Another reason why the Committee’s recommendation should be jettisoned is because it introduces undue limitation on the applicant’s rights herein by providing for regulations prescribing how to deal with such matters as those envisaged herein.

Section 6 – Notice Where Access to Record is Required

The Committee’s recommendation of 14 days time limit for considering applications for access to records appears unduly lengthy.  In view of the fact that we expect that in most applications of this nature, time would be of the essence, we would like to submit that the 7 days time limit provided for in the Official Gazette version of the bill seems more appropriate and so should be retained.

Section 8 – Extension of Time Limit

The committee’s recommendation, by virtue of the fact that it takes care of a repetition contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill, while still retaining the same thrust as the latter, should be retained.

Section 10 – Fees

10(1) For failing to include the expression “regulation” after the word public, the committee’s recommendation should be jettisoned in favour of what is contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill, which though similar to the former, does not suffer from this anomaly.

10(1)(c) The Committee’s recommendation herein basically corrects the grammatical error in the use of the expression “duplicate” as stated in the Official Gazette version of the bill.

10(2) Save for the need to correct some repetition and grammatical errors contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill, it is our submission that the provision should be retained because it is more expansive in scope in that it provides for access to records either                            free of charge or at subsidized rates, where the request for access to the information/record is being done for a public purpose and not a commercial one.

10(3) Save for the need to change the expression “duplicate” to “duplication”, as stated in the Committee’s recommendation, we feel that the provision as stated in the Official Gazette version of the bill should be retained because it is clearer and more easily understandable.

10(6)&(7) We do not share the view of the Committee to the effect that both provisions contained in the official gazette should be expunged. We hold this opinion in view of the fact that we feel that expunging both provisions substantially erodes the public interest element of                           access to records, given herein, to the generality of the citizenry irrespective of their financial standing, which is at the heart of the proposed law.

Section 11 – Destruction or Falsification of Records

While concurring with the thrust of the Committee’s recommendation, which basically expands the scope of penalties for this offence by providing for an option of fine, we do submit that the amount fixed by the Committee, be substantially increased. We think that this would serve as a more useful deterrent to potential offenders, because for any official to willfully destroy/falsify any public record before releasing it to the applicant, he/she must have very strong wrongdoing to protect and a fine of N500,000 might not be a strong enough deterrent to prevent such a public officer from actualizing his or her sinister objective.

Section 12 – Access to Records

12(3)(c) The Committee’s recommendation is the same as the provision contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill.                        

12(4) The Committee’s recommendation should be jettisoned because it fails to capture appropriately the essence of this portion of the bill, which essentially seeks to ensure that an applicant is not denied access to a document on the basis of any increased cost incurred in                              providing access to records to an applicant in a form other than that in which he requested for it.

Section 13 –Where Information is not Available Distinct Form

13(a) & (b) The Committee’s recommendation being simpler in nature, due to the fact that it basically translates the expression “discrete” used in the Official Gazette version of the bill into such simpler expressions as “separate and distinct” which might be more easily understood by more people, should be retained.

Section 18 – Third Party Information

18(3) The Committee’s recommendation being more elegantly drafted, should be retained, with some minor modification to include product testing, which was originally provided for in the Official Gazette version of the bill. Excluding product testing from the ambit of this provision would amount to a scaling down of the scope of this provision.

18(4) The Committee’s recommendation being essentially a correction of the provision contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill, should be retained.

Section 19 – Advice

19(1) The Committee’s recommendation is basically a verbatim reproduction of what is contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill.

19(2)(b) The provision as contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill should be retained, for being very clear and definite in scope. The expression “personal staff of an appointed public officer”, as recommended by the Committee, is overly broad for an exception such as the one contemplated in this provision.

Section 21 – Course or Research Materials

The Committee’s recommendation, even though the same in substance as the provision contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill, is more elegantly drafted and so should be retained in place of the latter.

Section 26 – Access to Record by Court

The Committee’s recommendation is the same as that contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill, except for the fact that in doing away with the expression “decree” it represents an improvement on the latter and so should be retained.

Section 27 – Court to Take Precaution Against Disclosing Information

By virtue of the fact that it is more elegantly drafted, the provision contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill, should be retained.

Section 33 – Submission of Reports

The Committee’s recommendation being more elegantly drafted, especially with the use of expression “and/or”, where appropriate, as well as simplifying the process of reporting to the National Assembly, should be retained.

Section 34 – Complimentary Procedure

34(1) Considering the strategic importance of this provision in terms of specifically safeguarding existing channels of access to public records, no matter how inadequate they maybe, we do not subscribe to the Committee’s recommendation that this provision be moved to the explanatory note to the bill. We humbly submit that it should be left to remain an integral section of the bill.