Part Three
Text of the
Freedom of Information Bill
Introduction
Various texts of
the Freedom of Information bill have been produced over the years. The
first text, entitled “Draft Access to Public Records and Official
Information Act”, was produced in 1994. Following a two-day technical
workshop jointly organised by MRA, the CLO and the NUJ in March 10 and 11,
1995 to debate the draft, it was revised later in 1995.
This draft was
revised once again in 1999 to incorporate the recommendations of
participants at the Workshop on Media Law Reform in Nigeria held at Ota in
Ogun State in March that year. After it was sent to some legislators in
July 1999, the bill had to undergo another revision later that year in
order to harmonise it with another draft produced independently by
Honourable Ugokwe, which he had also sought to sponsor at the House of
Representatives.
Following the
harmonization, the bill was published in Federal Government’s Official
Gazette, No. 91, Volume 86 of 8th December 1999 as Government
Notice No. 200 and described as “An Act to make Public Records and
Information more freely available, provide for Public Access to Public
Records and Information, Protect Public Records and Information to the
Extent consistent with the Public Interest and the Protection of Personal
Privacy, and Related Purposes hereof.”
It was this version
of the bill that was considered during the first and second hearings at
the House of Representatives on February 22 and March 13, 2000 and
subsequently consigned to the House Committee on Information for more
detailed consideration.
The Committee
concluded its assignment and submitted its report to the House on July 25,
2000. Included in the report was the gazetted bill and the Committee’s
recommendations on the modifications that should be made to it before it
is passed by the House. The report and proposals for amendments formed
the basis of the debates that took place in the House during the third
reading on March 15, 2001.
Following the
decision of the House to hold a public hearing on the bill, the
independent legal consultant engaged by the Information Committee to
prepare the report of the public hearing was also required to produce a
revised draft of the bill based on the predominant sentiments expressed by
speakers at the public hearing.
The legal
consultant produced the amended bill which he submitted with his report to
the Committee in November 2001. However, the bill has not been considered
by the House.
The following is
the text of the original gazetted bill with the proposals of the
Information Committee submitted to the House on July 25, 2000 and debated
at the third reading held on March 15, 2001.
click here to download
THE BILL
in PDF Format
Comments on Recommendations by the House Committee on Information
Section 1 - Short Title
The Committee’s recommendation
in this regard should be amended to read “Access to Public Records and
Information Act.” This would more appropriately capture the spirit and
letter of the law, as well being more in consonance with the explanatory
note on the cover page of the bill.
Section 2 - Interpretation
The definition of court as
contained in the Committee’s recommendation is highly erroneous. This is
because the expression “court” as used in the bill cannot be defined to
mean anywhere the official information is kept. On the contrary the
records referred to in the bill are those kept by any organ/agency of the
three tiers of government. Consequently we propose that the
definition given to the expression “court” as stated in the bill contained
in the Official Gazette should be retained.
The definition of
Public/Government Institution as stated in the bill contained in the
Official Gazette being more expansive in scope than the Committee’s
recommendation, should be retained.
The definition of public record
as stated in the Official Gazette version of the bill should be retained
because it is much more encompassing than that which is stated in the
Committee’s recommendation.
The Committee’s recommendation
regarding what photographic material would qualify as public record should
be retained because although it is identical to what is contained
in the Official Gazette version of the bill, it goes a little
further by correcting a slight anomaly in the spelling of the word
“device” as stated in the original version in the Gazette.
The definition of “person” in
the version of the bill contained in the Official Gazette, being more
elaborate than that contained in the committee’s recommendation, should be
retained.
The definition of the expression
“personal information” as stated in the Official Gazette version of the
bill should be retained because it is more appropriate, especially when
viewed against the background of the focus of the bill. Moreover, the
Committee’s recommendation in this wise is too broad in scope and cannot
by any stretch of imagination be termed the proper definition of personal
information, as it would amount to an attempt to bring a lot of otherwise
public information within the realm of personal information in other to
facilitate their exclusion from the ambit of records to which an applicant
is allowed access under the terms of this draft legislation
The definition of “Public
Officer” as contained in the Official Gazette version of the bill should
be retained in place of the Committee’s recommendation because it is more
expansive in scope.
Section 3 - Right of
Access to Information
3(1) Save for changing the
expression “every person” as stated in the version of the bill contained
in the Official Gazette, to “any person” the Committee’s recommendation
here in is a reproduction of what is contained in the official gazette.
3(2) The provision contained in
the Official Gazette version of the bill being more appropriate on this
point than the Committee’s recommendation, should be retained in place of
the latter.
3(3) The provision contained in
the Official Gazette version of the bill by virtue of its being more clear
cut and detailed should be retained. Another reason why the Committee’s
recommendation should be jettisoned is because it introduces undue
limitation on the applicant’s rights herein by providing for regulations
prescribing how to deal with such matters as those envisaged herein.
Section 6 – Notice Where
Access to Record is Required
Section 8 – Extension of
Time Limit
The committee’s recommendation,
by virtue of the fact that it takes care of a repetition contained in the
Official Gazette version of the bill, while still retaining the same
thrust as the latter, should be retained.
Section 10 – Fees
10(1) For failing to include the
expression “regulation” after the word public, the committee’s
recommendation should be jettisoned in favour of what is contained in the
Official Gazette version of the bill, which though similar to the former,
does not suffer from this anomaly.
10(1)(c) The Committee’s
recommendation herein basically corrects the grammatical error in the use
of the expression “duplicate” as stated in the Official Gazette version of
the bill.
10(2) Save for the need to
correct some repetition and grammatical errors contained in the Official
Gazette version of the bill, it is our submission that the provision
should be retained because it is more expansive in scope in that it
provides for access to records either free of charge or at subsidized
rates, where the request for access to the information/record is being
done for a public purpose and not a commercial one.
10(3) Save for the need to
change the expression “duplicate” to “duplication”, as stated in the
Committee’s recommendation, we feel that the provision as stated in the
Official Gazette version of the bill should be retained because it is
clearer and more easily understandable.
10(6)&(7) We do not share the
view of the Committee to the effect that both provisions contained in the
official gazette should be expunged. We hold this opinion in view of the
fact that we feel that expunging both provisions substantially erodes the
public interest element of access to records, given herein, to the
generality of the citizenry irrespective of their financial standing,
which is at the heart of the proposed law.
Section 11 – Destruction
or Falsification of Records
While concurring with the thrust
of the Committee’s recommendation, which basically expands the scope of
penalties for this offence by providing for an option of fine, we do
submit that the amount fixed by the Committee, be substantially increased.
We think that this would serve as a more useful deterrent to potential
offenders, because for any official to willfully destroy/falsify any
public record before releasing it to the applicant, he/she must have very
strong wrongdoing to protect and a fine of N500,000 might not be a strong
enough deterrent to prevent such a public officer from actualizing his or
her sinister objective.
Section 12 – Access to
Records
12(4) The Committee’s
recommendation should be jettisoned because it fails to capture
appropriately the essence of this portion of the bill, which essentially
seeks to ensure that an applicant is not denied access to a document on
the basis of any increased cost incurred in providing access to records to
an applicant in a form other than that in which he requested for it.
Section 13 –Where
Information is not Available Distinct Form
Section 18 – Third Party
Information
|
