Better Journalism Through an FOI Regime

By Angela Agoawike

Editor, National Interest, Saturday; Secretary, Nigerian Guild of Editors

Presented at the Public Hearing

Organised By

The Senate Committee on Information

Venue: Hearing Room 1, National Assembly Complex, Abuja

Date: April 26, 2005

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Senators, Dear Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen

Let me start by telling us some stories:

Story 1: There was a journalist doing a story, he tried to get information from those concerned, he couldn’t. So, he went ahead and did his story without really trying to get the facts. When the story broke and caused so much uproar, the journalist’s defense was that he needed to do the story to force the person who the story concerned to up more. Why? He had tried several times to confirm his story but got rebuffed. So, the only way he could get that was publish without adequate information.

Story 11: This happened in far away United States about a man driving his car. The Police flagged him down for over speeding. Somehow, the man was manhandled by the Police who later denied it when the driver went to the press and complained of the use “excessive force” by the Police. So what happened especially since the “Traffic Camera had been removed by the Cops? The newspaper organization that carried the story petitioned the courts asking the Police to release the camera. The court granted the petition, the camera was released and it was screened on public television. The man, a private citizen like you and I was able to receive public apology from the Police, because the Police hierarchy were convinced one of theirs indeed used excessive force in subduing the man.

Story 111: This we should all be aware of; Sometime in the early 90’s, there was an anti-SAP riot spear-headed by students of higher institutions across the country, especially in the South West. Reason? The respected but now late educationist, Dr. Tai Solarin, had gone to town with a story he overhead. He did not confirm and neither did the press because they knew no one would listen to them. The anti-sap riot caused millions of Naira worth of damages s well as lives. A society run on openness would have been saved itself that ordeal because there would have been no reason for anyone to act based on rumour.

Mr. Chairman, the essence of these stories I have told here is simple: Society could be saved from a lot of trouble and damages if it is run in an open manner.

As journalists, we deal on, in and with information. In saying that, it is taken for granted, but with all sense of responsibility, that we know the power of information.  As everyone has noted and agreed, a freedom of information regime in any society, makes for better governance, it is the foundation on which any democracy is built. It is an instrument for every member of the society, to use in ensuring that those governing us do the right thing by us, and when they claim they are doing so, it is the instrument that any member of

society can invoke to be sure that whatever is being done is really being done for them and in their best interest.

It would open up government and governance and so doing make Nigerians have a stake in governance. Oftentimes, we as Nigerians are told that we all have a stake in the running of government. How can one have a stake in what is closed to him? How can one feel he is part of a government that shuts him out of vital information? There is no doubt that if Nigerians have access to publicly held information, society would be better for it, and one can truly, appropriate governance, and feel part of the process.

While a Freedom of Information regime is a basic ingredient of democracy and good governance, and indeed, a tool for every member of society, there is no gainsaying the fact that journalists, as people who deal in information gathering, management and dissemination would very much use this instrument in doing their job. In doing so, journalism and indeed, the larger society would be better for it. 

Make no mistake about it too; a Freedom of Information regime (a regime of openness in government and handling of public information) will elevate journalism practice in the country. It will make journalists more responsible in information management and dissemination.

Journalists have the interest of this country at heart. If not, we would not have spearheaded so much independence and self determination struggles before independence till now. We also know that we have no other country but this and as such, our desire to ensure that things that need to be done to make this country take its rightful position are done. But we cannot do that and do it well if we do not have information to make valued judgments.

Yes, there is a bit of excess in whatever we do as human beings, even the most responsible of all of us. And that is why the Act has mapped out areas of exclusion (giving custodians of the information needed the right to refuse to disclose such information) as far as making such needed information available and Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19.

In a situation where the benefits far outweigh the negatives, we have no other course that to support an instruments from which those benefits are derivable.

Apart from our obligation to society to inform, we owe the same society the responsibility of informing accurately. An FOI law will ensure that we do that.

Inotherwards, a  Freedom of Information regime will ensure the following for journalists:

1. It will reduce the incidence of rumors being published as facts

2. It would give journalists the benefit of first hand information, avoiding and elimination the practice of “I heard it from this or that person”. With an FOI in place, the journalist will source information first hand.

3. It would drastically reduce avoidable cases of libel and character assassination

4. It would ensure balancing of stories, making sure that every party to a story gets a fair hearing, knowing that for the existence of this bill from which you as a journalist is benefiting, there is a responsibility too.

    5.   It would make the journalist a much more responsible professional. Section 4 (A)    of the Act tells us how request for information can be made – In Writing. What that means to me is that any journalist that applies for any piece of information also has information about him documented. Which means he has to do a good job because he would always be traced if he uses the information wrongly? There is no anonymity in applying for such information.

Mr. Chairman, I know that some members of the society have advanced the argument that enacting a freedom of information law means giving more powers to the journalist.  I have also heard some well placed people in the society say that one media organization or the other published lies about them and the office they hold, and as such, a freedom of information law is a dangerous weapon for the journalist to have. With all due respects, I think that is in fact, narrowing down the benefits that will accrue should the bill be passed into law and restricting to it only one group in the society. 

It also shows that perhaps, we need to do more job as informers to educate every educable member of society on the benefits of an FOI regime for this country, even for the market woman of what she stands to gain from and under an FOI regime.

For starters Mr. Chairman, there is no where it is said in that Act that it is for the media. Rather, the emphasis is on “anyone” wishing to obtain information which of course must be in the public domain.

There is also, the fear being expressed by other people that such a law will make journalists to pry into their private lives. For the avoidance of doubt, the bill before the senate is for Access to “Public” records and information, and it is as well, for the “Protection of Personal Privacy”.  If you go through section 16 (1), you will also realize that the Act has taken care of this fear.

Even with that and such other legal provisions against the invasion of privacy,  a fact remains that with or without an FOI Law, those whose brand of journalism is to pry into people’s private lives will still do so as they do not need any law to do what they are doing.

But then, with an FOI regime, this brand of journalism is even at greater risk than those they write about, whose advantage is that they can sue for invasion of privacy. Therefore, an FOI regime will instead, assist those who wish to do responsible journalism, whether at soft sell or hard sell level.

In societies that have instituted a freedom of information regime, the fact remains that society is the biggest beneficiary and as members of that society, journalists also benefit because like I have said, it enhances the job they do.

However, people have argued also, that our democracy is still too young for us to have such a bill. They are now quick to point to the United Kingdom, which despite its development and sophistication level, only passed the bill very recently and it came to into force in January of 2005.

There is no argument about that except to ask: Must we also go through the entire process? If it is a must, then one could say we are failing in other areas like Agriculture, for not allowing ourselves to embrace the antiquated luxury of first, going through the process of an Industrial Revolution of our own before accepting that we can embrace economic growth as a principle.

The fact is that we don’t have to; we have avoided those processes because we can now embrace the benefits of the Revolution without going through the entire process. It’s called learning from history.

For me, it is the same with an FOI regime: We do not have to go through the whole hug. The fact that after so many years, a nation like Britain, despite its level of sophistication and freedom enjoyed still saw the need for an FOI law is a pointer to its importance in ensuring good governance.

Even at that, before the FOI Law came into force in Britain, there had been other provisions that ensured that the citizens got the information they needed. The fact is that we have nothing like that. Instead, there is a constant argument that we are too young to have such a bill.

Mr. Chairman, a nation can never be too young to institute or build structures that would guarantee its longevity and solidity. Moreover, when we will we be ripe? At a 100 years? Nigeria on October 1, 2005, will clock 45 years. That is not young when we have people far below that age making laws for us and directing our affairs at executive and corporate levels. They have all done well. So, Nigeria cannot be too young or too fragile to enthrone openness as a cardinal principal of governance.

Mr. Chairman, as some other presenters would have highlighted, law makers could even end up as biggest beneficiaries of the Bill when it is passed into law. You remember the incident of three members of the House of Representatives in the 1st phase of this democracy who wanted information on the finances of the House. They were refused that information. But as members and stakeholders in the House, they had the right and duty to ensure that things were working the way they ought to work.

You recognize the number of times you have had to call for information on certain issues from serving officials. This law will make a lot easier for you to do that as so, make better laws.

The benefits Mr. Chairman are enormous to you, to us, but especially, to the Nigerian society and the survival of our democratic process.

I thank you for this opportunity as those of us in the NGE look forward to society and country run with more openness.

Coalitions

Partners