By Towncriernews
Media Rights Agenda, a Civil Society Organisation, has urged the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) to disclose names of public institutions that are not complying with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.
Mr Edetaen Ojo, the Executive Director of the Media Rights Agenda, made the call in his presentation at the ongoing two-day Stakeholders’ Technical Meeting on FOI Amendment Bill and Upgrade of Reporting & Compliance Mechanism.
The event which began on Monday is organised by the International Press Centre (IPC), lead partner, Component four (Support to Media) of the European Union Support to Democratic Governance in Nigeria, phase II (EU-SDGN II) programme in collaboration with PLAC and YIAGA Africa.
Edetaen in his presentation titled ‘’Context of Strengthening Enforcement and Compliance Mechanisms’’ , also said that recommendations regarding sanctions that may be imposed on persistent non-complying institutions should be included.
He noted that the FOI Act, 2011, even in its present form, was regarded as a relatively good access to information framework, with some very strong features although it also contains a number of weaknesses.
According to him, an obvious gap in the FOI Act is the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms or processes and procedures for ensuring compliance with most of the obligations imposed on public institutions.
He explained that the Act was not completely bereft of enforcement mechanisms.
‘’Indeed, the Act places excessive reliance on judicial mechanism, predominantly litigation, for enforcing compliance with all its provisions, including the duties and obligations imposed on public institutions, and relies on members of the public to activate these mechanisms’’, he said.
He added that out of about 140 national accesses to information laws listed on the Global Right to Information (RTI) rating platform, which analyses the quality of the world’s access to information laws, Nigeria’s FOI Act was ranked number 64 with a score of 88 points out of a maximum possible score of 150.
‘’This is obviously above average both in score and in ranking.
“The RTI rating assesses the strength of national legal frameworks for accessing information held by public authorities and its methodology is derived from international standards, as well as best practices at the national level.
‘’Scores are based on 61 indicators, each of which looks at a particular feature of a strong legal regime for access to information.
‘’The indicators are divided into seven main categories, namely the strength of the Right of Access granted by the Law, the Scope, Requesting Procedure, Exemptions and Refusals, Appeals mechanisms, Sanctions and Protections, and Promotional Measures.
‘’Our major undoing is the fact that we do not have an independent administrative appeals mechanism or administrative sanctions,’’ he said .
The executive director also said that the law also does not place responsibility on any institution or body to promote the Act to ensure public awareness.
He however said that two countries in Africa, both of which are also in West Africa, were listed among the top 10 access to information laws in the world.
According to him, these are the Gambian Access to Information Act, 2021, listed as Number six with a score of 128 points; and the Liberian Freedom of Information Act, 2010, listed as number 10 with a score of 123 points.
‘’There are many other African countries with much better laws than Nigeria, and such other countries in the top 20 ATI laws in the world are Sierra Leone at Number 11, South Sudan, 12 Tunisia, 15 South Africa, 16 and Namibia, 17.
‘’So it is not unrealistic for us to aspire to have a better law, which can be among the best in the world.’’
Edetaen further explained that the rating system only analyses the strength of the law based on its provisions and does not assess effectiveness of the law in reality or its implementation.
‘’Although we also have an Access to Information Implementation Readiness Assessment framework that we developed by the Carter Centre, which was applied in Nigeria 10 years ago.
‘’So, in addition to the weaknesses in the quality of the Nigerian FOI Act, which may have undermined its effectiveness, there are also shortcomings resulting from the implementation process which really have nothing to do with the provisions of the Act.
‘’In deciding what amendments to propose or pursue, it may also be necessary to consider some of such external factors that have manifested in the implementation process in order to determine whether texts may be introduced in amendment bills to address such issues.
‘’It should also be noted that we have in existence Guidelines on the Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 (Revised Edition 2013), issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.
‘’This guidelines provide practical guidance for public institutions on the interpretation and implementation of provisions of the Act,’’ he added.
According to him, in many respects, the guidelines have sought to respond to some of the gaps in the Act.
‘’We should now decide whether some of such provisions in the guidelines are adequate in addressing those gaps or should also be incorporated into the proposed amendments to give them greater force of law.’’
‘’This is the singular issue sought to be addressed by the two amendment bills pending before the House of Representatives.
‘’Under Section 29 of the Act, each public institution must submit to the Attorney-General of the Federation by Feb. 1 of every year, a report on the usage of the Act covering the preceding fiscal year.’’
He said that the compliance issues here were if public institutions were submitting their reports in accordance with Section 29 of the Act?
‘’If so, are the reports submitted within the timeframe specified by Section 29 of the Act; do the contents of the reports meet the requirements of section 29, particularly with reference to the information that should be provided?’’, he said.