Abstract
Access to information is critical to the realisation of an accountable government. The enactment of Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act in 2011 ushered in a fresh hope of imminent victory over the culture of secrecy that had always defined the Nigerian public service. The Act provides for public acess to public record and information; obligates public institutions to maintain records and allow public access to information, among other things. It establishes procedures for the achievement of these purposes. This paper examines the institutional and reporting requirements provisions, which constitute part of the goal of the Act to enhance the availability and accessibility of public records and information. The paper finds that, lofty as these provisions are, there are gaps in the law. These gaps include ambiguity in some of the provisions and failure to provide requisite sanctions for noncompliance with certain provisions of the law. There are also the challenges of the pervasive culture of not keeping record by public institutions and lack of sufficient will on the part of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, who is the chief implementing officer of the Act, to ensure the success of the goal of the Act. In order to address these challenges, the paper recommends, among others, that the identified gaps be filled, adequate sanctions be provided for noncompliance with relevant provisions of the law while the few sanctions already provided for in the Act should be effectively enforced.
Highlights
Public bodies hold information not for themselves but as custodians of the public good and everyone has a right to access this information, subject only to clearly defined rules established by law (Sendugwa, 2010; Mendel, 2003)
Seeing that the requirement for recourse to the court could be counterproductive for most citizens, the question especially with regard to record keeping, is, is recourse to the court the most effective way to achieve the goal of the Act? The foregoing evidence shows that it certainly has not been. Assuming it is, why should it be the duty of concerned individual citizens alone to enforce it? Admittedly, the aim of the law cannot be to impose a burden on citizens, but it can make the realisation of the right the Act confers easier by reducing the challenges associated with it. Would it not help if the Act empowered the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, as a mandated partial implementing officer of the Act (s.29) for instance, to set up a monitoring team to ensure compliance with the provisions of section 2 and any other relevant section(s) of the Act? the Attorney-General could seek for means of providing appropriate administrative sanctions against noncompliance, which, no doubt, will make a positive impact in the general implementation of the Act
It has been indicated that part of the challenges of implementation of the provisions of the Act in this regard is the failure of the Act to provide for Information Access Commissioner (IAC) who could serve as an ombudsman to ensure that individuals seeking access to information get adequate response to their complaints, including those relating to denials of information (Omotayo, 2015)
Summary
Public bodies hold information not for themselves but as custodians of the public good and everyone has a right to access this information, subject only to clearly defined rules established by law (Sendugwa, 2010; Mendel, 2003). Udombana of the mass media to, at all times, be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in Chapter II of the Constitution and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people while section 24 imposes a duty on every citizen to, among other things, help enhance the power, prestige and good name of Nigeria; and make positive and useful contribution to the advancement, progress and well-being of the community where he resides The fulfilment of this duty demands that the citizens take seriously their responsibility to act as watchdogs over governmental affairs. According to the United Nations, this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (GAR 217A(III)) This position is reinforced by the proactive Supreme Court of India, which as far back as the early 70s held in Bennett Coleman & Co v The Union of India (1973) that the freedom of speech and expression is inclusive of the right of all citizens to read and be informed. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.” (Hunt, 2008)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
