 |
To self governing societies, a major test of a nation’s freedom is the degree of liberty people have in speaking, writing and publishing. 17th and 18th century thought in much of Western Europe and America turned to faith in man’s reason as the safest basic for government, and if man was rational, indeed, he needed access to a maximum flow of information and opinion as a basis for making decision.
Leaders of enlightenment thought considered freedom of speech and press indispensable to the life of a public capable of self government. In addition, it was widely considered that this freedom was to the individual’s
|
| Yar'Adua Bankole |
|
own development and realisation, a natural right to which every man claim in exploiting his faculties.
Although, the values of freedom of information may be considered paramount and be exalted, there are circumstances where other values may take priority in a conflict situation over rights, but freedom of information bears no restrictions.
The right to speak and publish does not carry with it, the unrestrained right to gather information. Man can be seen to be free in any society (no matter how authoritarian) as long as he accepts the postulates of the society, but he can only be free in a society that is willing to allow its basic postulates to be questioned.
Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public, to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press, but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity.
The freedom of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state and Free State rests on an informed public. It consists in laying no restraints upon prior and following publication and not in freedom from censure for criminal mater when published.
Freedom of information (FOI): The American Perspective. No segment of the American public has been more concerned about tendencies of secrecy in government than newsmen. Some feel that it is the central threat of freedom of expression in mid 20th century America.
Accepting, during World War II, the need for extensive secrecy for an enormous war machine in a government bureaucracy grown tremendously, newsmen, after, soon detected a broad pattern of continued secrecy in government operations, access to meetings was denied, reports, papers, documents of all levels of government seemed less available than before officialdom habits of secrecy developed in the passion for security during World War II. Editors, publishers, reports and news organisation launched an intense campaign for access to government information in the 1950s. It went under a banner labeled “freedom of information” and under that claim that the press was fighting for the people’s right to know.
To combat what they viewed as severe increase in denial of access to public business, journalists took various organised action, part of which culminated in the first amendment to the United States of America constitution.
Nelson and Teeter (1973), observed that the free flow of information is the foundation for all those freedoms that the first amendment of the constitution was intended to guarantee. They further observed that the existence of an access factor in the amendment is part of the great body of residual rights of the people.
The 36th President of America, Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966 signed the Federal Public Law providing for the availability to the public of the records of executive and administrative agencies of Federal Government. It replaced section 3 of the Country’s Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.
In signing the law, President Johnson said it sprang “from one of our most essential principles of democracy: a democracy works best when the people have all the information that security of a nation permits”. This law has come to be called “Freedom of Information (FOI)” Act.
What then is Freedom of Information (FOI)?
It means a general right of access to see information held by public bodies, it is premised on “the need to know is right to know”. It makes government more open and accessible; it provides that any person can request information from public body and have that information given to him subject to certain exemptions.
What are the exemptions?
A public authority has to give you the information unless it is covered by qualified or absolute exemptions. Qualified exemptions are subject to the “public interest test”. The body or the information office at appeal stage, has to judge whether the pubic interest in keeping secret outweighs that of disclosing it. Examples of qualified exemptions include information that would prejudice the formulation of government policy, the effective conduct of public affairs, national security or international relations.
One will get absolute refusal to release information if he ask for something covered by an absolute exemption; for example, materials on the intelligence services, certain court records and information that cannot be disclosed because of other laws.
Freedom of information is designed to encourage openers and accountability in public authorities, help increase level of public trust and encourage dealings with the public. It provides additional methods by which you can obtain information from government agencies. It is a signpost to where information can be gotten. It allows to petition government to provide records from certain governmental agencies except one shielded by law.
The process of freedom of information must necessarily be undertaken within the framework of the regulatory scheme that evolved in the society. The principle at stake here is one of fundamental importance that concerns the peoples right to engage in and hear information.
FOI is more relevant when it is enacted in the form of legislation that would provide a legal framework of access to public information; by so doing, it will attempt to assure the press and members of the public, access to meetings of government bodies and documents that are classified or part of public official files. When the news media have this type of legislation protecting their ability to report, the free flow of information to the public is much more open. Freedom of information can be a useful tool for generating stories by revealing newsworthy materials which would otherwise have stayed secret.
In practical terms, the media have been active users of the legislation as have been campaign groups and some businesses.
As at April 2007, about 53 countries in the world including two from Africa continent have existing FOI legislation. The African countries are South Africa and Zimbabwe. South Africa passed the promotion of Access to Information Act on February 2, 2000 and it is intended to give effect to the constitutional right of access to any information held by the state and any information that is held by another person, that is required for the exercise or protection of any right”. The right to access to privately held information is an interesting feature, as most freedom of information laws only cover government bodies.
In Zimbabwe, the Access to Information and Privacy Act was signed by President Robert Mugabe in February 2002.
The 16 counties of the world with pending legislation include Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Mozambique, Uganda and Nigeria all in Africa Continent.
In Ghana, the FOI bill was re-submitted to cabinet in 2005, in Kenya, the draft FOI Act 2005 has not been introduced to parliament. In Lesotho, the Access and Receipt of Information bill was before parliament in 2003 – 2004 but the status of legislation as at April 2007 was unknown.
The government of Mozambique produced a draft FOI bill in August 2005. The bill was expected to become law before 2007 ended. In Uganda, the Access to Information Act was approved in 2005. FOI bill in Nigeria has its harmonized version passed by both Houses of the National Assembly and sent to the president in March 23, 2007 for his assent. Under section 58 (4) of the 1999 constitution, the president is required within 30 days of the passed bill being presented to him, to signify that he assents or withholds assent. Section 58 (5) provides that where the president withholds assent, both Houses can, with a two-third majority pass the bill and it shall become law and the assent of the president shall not be required.
With the FOI law in Nigeria, it was reasoned that it would not only be the first of its kind in West Africa, but it would provide a potent tool in the fight against corruption, which was dear to President Olusegun Obasanjo’s heart.
The FOI bill was first introduced to the House of Representatives in 1999 as private member bill and published on December 8, 1999.
After going through first and 2nd reading in February 22 and March 13, 2000, respectively, it spent more than a year thereafter with the House Committee on Information before presenting it to plenary where it was till the end of the life span of the National Assembly in June 2003.
Eventually, a new House of Representatives approved one version of the bill on August 25, 2004 while the senate approved a slightly different version in November 2006, the two chambers harmonised and adopted the version early 2007 and subsequently forwarded it to the President in March 2003.
The ex-president was unequivocal when he faulted the title of the bill at reason for withholding his assent.
The reluctance of the President to sign the FOI bill into law gave cause for concern. It is worth pointing out that, government then and now are not sending the right signal on the FOI bill, with continued reliance on the official secret Act. A regime of official secret is antithetical to the idea and spirit of freedom of information except otherwise indicated in the bill.
This bill when passed into law is intended to complement and not to replace existing procedures for access to public records and information and is not intended to limit in any way access to those types of official information that have, hitherto been normally available to the general public.
It is therefore unfortunate and most uncharitable for a Nigerian government that lays claim to upholding democratic principles to continually play “hide and seek” game with the passage of the FOI bill. Infact, no group or person in his/her sense will jettison a populace verdict by logic.
This year alone, the FOI bill has been presented in the floor of the House of Representatives at least twice and it was thrown out. One of the reasons advanced for this unpatriotic line of action was that, the chairperson, House Committee on Information, Hon. Abike Dabiri Erewa was never regular at plenary, how can she appear at plenary for the purpose of presenting the bill and expect it to be passed afterwards she disappears, they queried.
While bulk is being passed from one segment of the society to another for the non-passage of the bill, the professional bodies of journalists in Nigeria have been blamed more than any one else.
Shortly after the bill was last thrown out of the floor by Representatives, members of both Houses of the National Assembly accused journalists and media practitioners of being responsible for the fate that befell the FOI bill. They said the media men were not doing enough to educate the public about the bill. True to claim, one must be quick to observe that even many media personnel may not have seen the draft bill for the first time. How then can one begin the process of educating the public when one is not educated. ‘Nemo dat quod non habet’, the greek would say; meaning, ‘you cannot give what you do not have’. The leadership of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), the umbrella body of all journalists in Nigeria has not farred better. It was reliably gathered that at no forum had the present leadership of the union canvassed the passage of the bill except once, which was at the gala-night recently organised by the Edo State council of the union. Should we then expect outsiders to cry more than we the journalists who are the bereaved in this case? If an entire congregation is possessed with the spirit, who will shout Hallelujah. It is worthy of note that when a congregational prayer is faulty, the Imam is to be blamed.
Notwithstanding, the shortcomings and reservations expressed in different quarters over the delay in the passage of the bill, that the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) two weeks ago resolved to initiate a process of lobbying National Assembly members through dialogue is commendable.
President of NGE, Mr. Gbenga Adefaye in a Keynote address at the maiden media training for insurance correspondents organised in Ijebu Ode, Ogun State by the Chattered Institute of Insurance of Nigeria and Continental Reinsurance PLC was reported to have expressed NGE’s willingness to comply with Senate President, David Marks’ directive that NGE appears before relevant committees of the National Assembly ostensibly to explain the wisdom in the passage of the bill and what Nigerians stand to benefit.
From whatever angle one looks at it, last week’s promise by the House of Senate to pass the bill into law is a signpost to better things ahead. While not counting our chicks before they are hatch, one hopes and believes that the Senate will make good their promise.
Press freedom: The argument for press freedom is naturally spearheaded by the media practitioners, supported by media scholars, all of whom are attached and influenced by the claims and reality of the comparatively free atmosphere of practice in Western Countries. Some of the advocates quote the first amendment to the American constitution, which says, inter alia, “congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” and argued for similar provision in the Nigeria constitution. The implication of this is that, government regulation of the media must not only be unobtrusive but also be sufficiently justified to meet the limits of the first amendment. They argue that such a provision would prevent the enactment of laws, which hinder professional practice.
The concept of press freedom connotes prior to publication, the absence of censorship, but following publication, no prosecution for the free expression other than on widely accepted principles of the general law of the jurisdiction and the guarantee of non interference with lawful circulation and not freedom from legal consequences or responsibilities.
Press freedom is the right of the people to be informed through the press and other media of communication, it means freedom to gather news, write it, publish and circulate it.
In its widest sense, it represents the collective enlargement of the citizens total freedom and especially the freedom of expression which is guaranteed by Article 16 of the United Nations Charter on Human Right and replicated in the 1999 Nigeria constitution. Section 39 (1) of the constitution states “that every person shall be entitled to hold opinion and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference”. It is the citizen right to know, to be able to chose within the body polity and participate in public discuss. In an open society where citizens are expected to participate in the decisions that affect their lives and to have opportuity to choose information and discussions are essential ingredients for participation and choice. It therefore goes that any restriction on press freedom is not merely an attack on the press, it is a direct encroachment on the fundamental right of the citizens to have knowledge and information.
Inspite of this, the 1979 constitution drafting committee opposed specific provision for the freedom of the press, instead, it stated: “there are no grounds for given any Nigerian citizen a lesser right to the freedom of expression than any other citizen or persons who happens to be a newspaper editor or reporter”.
The world of information is so complex to understand and interpret by an individual, hence it is improper to equate freedom of the press with that of the individual. Functionally, the press is in a better position to gather, analyses and disseminate information, educate the people on national ideology, civic responsibility and their rights and obligation to the society. It cannot even begin to contribute to the process of nation building if it did not understand the dynamics of the society; understanding those dynamic clearly requires access to information. There is no doubt that freedom of information is a sin-qua-non to press freedom.
The press cannot educate others if itself is not adequately educated about the society.
|
