Nearly a decade and half after the Freedom of Information Act was enacted in Nigeria, only 91 out of about 800 public institutions (11.38 per cent) have complied with the law, highlighting a glaring gap between legislation and implementation. The dismal compliance rate raises serious concern, not only on the commitment of public institutions to transparency and accountability but also, the failure of oversight authorities to enforce compliance. OWEDE AGBAJILEKE reports.

About 709 out of 800 Nigerian institutions have been found to have flouted the Freedom of Information Act (FoI Act) by failing to disclose public information on request, as stipulated by the Act, which empowers citizens to officially request for information, particularly from government institutions on any issue of public interest.

Assented to by former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan in 2011, the Act aimed at promoting transparency and accountability in governance by bestowing on citizens, right to request and access information from government institutions on their activities.

Section 1(1) of the Act states that: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, law or regulation, the right of any person to access or request information, whether or not contained in any written form, which is in the custody or possession of any public official, agency or institution howsoever described, is established.”

In spite of the provision of this section of the law, The Guardian findings revealed a conspicuous implementation gap, with only 91 out of 800 institutions (11.38 per cent) complying with law since its enactment 14 years ago.

Some of the institutions that are non-compliant with the Act include, the Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation (NTDC) now Nigerian Tourism Development Authority (NTDA); Nigerian Airspace Management Agency, New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), Radiographers Registration Council, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), National Primary Healthcare Development Agency and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The Head, FoI Unit, Federal Ministry of Justice, Mr Godwin Garuba, who confirmed the findings, admitted that only 91 institutions fully complied with the Freedom of Information Act in 2023, a slight increase from the 90 that complied with the law in 2022.

He stated that compliance is measured by the submission of annual reports by the institution to the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), detailing the number of FoI requests processed each year.

According to the legal practitioner, besides Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), the Act also applies to private institutions that utilise public funds.

According to him, Section 29 of the Act empowers the Attorney General of the Federation to collate FoI reports yearly from all the ministries, departments and agencies, and report the same to the National Assembly. He said: “For the purpose of compliance, we have to engage those public institutions that have never complied since the inception of the Act in 2011, on the need to do so.

“We have roughly 800 public institutions. By last year, only 91 complied and that is the reason the AGF engaged about 100 of them last year to see how we can improve compliance level for this year.

“We are systematically engaging with them. We are also reaching out to private bodies that have engagements with us. If everything works out well, we should be able to get to 300 to 500 institutions complying this year.”

Although the Act has mandated that public officials and institutions furnish citizens with requested information within seven working days, this aspect of the Act has often met with strict resistance as heads of information departments of most agencies decline requests on the ground that they were not in a position to divulge information to the public. Unfortunately, attempts to get them acquainted with the provisions of the Act often prove abortive as their activities remain shrouded in secrecy, even when their actions contravene the provisions of the Act.

For instance, Section 7 (5) stipulates that: “If an official or institution conceals, alters or deliberately destroys information, such official or institution is liable to a fine of N500,000 on conviction.” Similarly, subsection 10 of the same Section imposes a one-year jail term for public officials, who “willfully destroy” public records kept in their possession.

The Guardian findings revealed that the major problem lies in the enforcement and the will power to sanction defaulters. So far, among all the defaulting institutions of government, only the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has been fined by the court in the past for concealing information.

A constitutional lawyer and human rights activist, Prof. Mike Ozekhome (SAN), blamed the lack of enforcement on institutional weakness and called for greater accountability by public institutions.

The senior lawyer also highlighted the importance of upholding the law and ensuring that institutions comply with regulatory requirements. He said: “Freedom of Information Act was passed to enable citizens to access information easily from the three tiers of government, and by the provision of the Act itself, all of them are bound to give out any information required.

“Where and when some of them become adamant, intransigent and refuse to give such information, then, the individual or organisation should go to court and seek an order of Mandamus to compel such a public institution to release the requested document or information. That is the only way out.

“It is so shameful that only 91 public institutions have been complying with the FOI Act and the rest have not. That shows you that Nigeria’s governance system is opaque. It is not transparent. It is operated in a voodoo manner like witches and wizards in a coven. And this is very sad for Nigeria.”

Also speaking on the development, a public affairs analyst, Ifeanyi Nwoko, expressed concern over the selective application of the law, stating that lack of enforcement against other organisations suggested a systemic issue that undermines the effectiveness of the regulation. He therefore called for greater accountability and stricter enforcement to ensure compliance across all institutions.

“You have weak enforcement. As stipulated by the Act, when you need information from a public organisation, you write to them officially. But when they decline to furnish you with the desired information, what happens next? Who enforces it or compels them to comply? How do you compel an organisation like the NNPCL or CBN to give you information that they are not willing to divulge? Who do you write to? Who actually compels them to give you such information? When and where there is a default, what is the penalty for such a defaulter? He asked rhetorically.

Also speaking, the Initiator, Creative Change Centre, Omole Ibukun, expressed worries that citizens’ inability to access information from public institutions hinders their ability to make informed decisions and participate in governance as it is expected of them.

He held that the abysmal compliance level spoke volumes of institutional weakness across all sectors of the economy. His words: “The Federal Government’s claim that only 91 out of over 800 public institutions have complied with the Freedom of Information Act, has only exposed the entrenched culture of opacity and power hoarding that pervades Nigerian society.

“In a truly democratic society, information should be a collective resource, not a tool for maintaining power and control. But power hoarding through information opacity is what happens in MDAs and public institutions in Nigeria. It is used to make citizens, journalists and activists powerless in holding these institutions accountable. It is a systematic disempowerment of the people.

“In 2023 alone, 175 MDAs flouted FoI requests and this is because the federal government has condoned this impunity, especially where appointed leaders of these MDAs or public institutions feel they have the backing of the Presidency.

“One solution would have been to ensure that any government appointee leading public institutions, where the FoI Act is being flouted should constitutionally lose his or her appointments immediately after a certain ultimatum on the FoI request.

“This is one veritable way that the Presidency can show that it is not the one backing this impunity. But how feasible is this practical solution in a country where even the National Assembly that passed that law flouts it?

“The Freedom of Information Act is, and will always be a step in the right direction but its implementation is hindered by the very structures it was created to reform.

“This is because our problem is beyond one corrupt or shady institution of the society or the other. Our problem extends to the kind of structure that all of these institutions are built on.

“If we are going to make information about our collective affairs more accessible to the average Nigerian, we need to fundamentally rethink our approach to power and information. Ensuring compliance with the FoI Act will require from us, a fundamental shift in our public culture, social values and our approach to power.

“We need to rebuild the country in such a way that prioritises transparency, accountability and collective participation, to truly address this problem,” Ibukun said.