MRA places NIMC in FOI Hall of Shame
Media Rights Agenda (MRA) yesterday placed the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) in the Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame, saying it was recognising the agency for its determined efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the FOI Act, 2011.
Launched July 3, 2017, the FOI Hall of Shame spotlights public officials and institutions undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act through their actions, inactions, utterances and decisions.
The PRO media group accused the Commission of failing to comply with its duties and obligations under the FOI Act, including the most simple and straightforward aspects of the law that do not present any implementation challenges or that would cost it nothing to comply with.
It called on the NIMC to redeem its image by complying with the provisions of the FOI Act and demonstrate that it actually holds “transparency” as one of its core values.
In a statement in Lagos, Ayode Longe, MRA’s Programme Director, said: “In the absence of any explanation to the contrary, it would appear that the NIMC has adopted a deliberate policy of non-compliance with the FOI Act, which really amounts to shooting itself in the foot, as such an attitude robs it of the public trust and confidence it requires to execute its mandate efficiently and effectively.”
MRA noted that the NIMC is a vital government agency, established by the NIMC Act No. 23 of 2007, to operate Nigeria’s national identity management systems, including the national identity card database, integrate the existing identity database in government institutions, register individuals and legal residents, assign a unique national identification number and introduce general multi-purpose cards.
It stated that the Commission had failed over the years to act in accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act, including its obligation to conduct appropriate training for its officials on the public’s right of access to government-held information and equip relevant staff with the skills to effectively implement the Act as provided by Section 13 of the Act.
Longe said: “Among many other arguments which can be made, one reason why the Commission’s attitude is troubling is the fact that as an agency that collects and maintains citizens’ personal data, it owes the citizens a duty to be open and let them know how it collects the data, what it does with the data, how it keeps them and, crucially, allow citizens access to information held about them and be able to correct their own personal data where there are errors.”
MRA also observed that over the last six years, the NIMC has not designated an officer to whom FOI requests should be sent in utter disregard of Section 2(3) (f) of the Act, while it has also never, during the same period since the coming into force of the Act, submitted a single FOI implementation report to the Attorney General of the Federation, as required by Section 29 (1) (a – h) of the FOI Act and in accordance with the provisions of the Guidelines on the Implementation of the FOI Act issued by the Attorney General of the Federation.
Longe noted that “the NIMC has not published on its website most of the categories of information it is expected to publish that will assist the public in making requests for information to the Commission. For instance, there is no information on its website about the classes of records it holds or information relating to grants or contracts it had made; the list of all its staff and their salaries; information relating to the receipt or expenditure of public funds; manuals used by its employees in administering or carrying out any of its programmes or activities; documents containing substantive rules of the institution; or any list of files containing applications for contracts, permits, grants, licenses or agreements, etc. among many categories of information that the Act requires it to publish.”
No comments yet