|
Presentation by Media Rights Agenda
At the Public Hearing on the Freedom of
Information Bill, 2004
Organized by the Senate Committee on
Information
Tuesday, April 26, 2005.
Distinguished Chairman and Members of the Senate Committee
on Information,
On behalf of Media Rights Agenda (MRA), I would like to
thank you for inviting us to make a presentation at this Public Hearing.
There are two broad issues which we propose to address in
this presentation. The first is whether Nigeria ought to have a Freedom
of Information Act. This question has sometimes been framed as whether
Nigeria’s democracy is mature enough to accommodate a Freedom of
Information Act. The second issue is: assuming that we agree that Nigeria
ought to have a Freedom of Information Act (which we at Media Rights
Agenda unequivocally believe), what type of Freedom of Information Act
should we have?
In addressing these issues, we will advance arguments on
why a Freedom of Information Act in Nigeria is long overdue and proceed to
review the Freedom of Information Bill 2004, which is presently before the
Senate, and make proposals for some modifications.
Rationale for a Freedom of Information Act in Nigeria
There can really be no question whether Nigeria ought to
have a Freedom of Information Act or whether we are democratically mature
enough to have one. It is a question that tends to diminish the status of
Nigeria as a country and cast a slur on the intelligence of its people.
At the moment, there are about 56 countries around the
world which have freedom of information laws in one form or the other, the
oldest being Sweden which has had an access to information law since
1766. At least, 35 countries around the world have clear and specific
constitutional provisions which guarantee access to information. Not all
of these countries are more politically sophisticated and economically
developed than Nigeria.
Nigeria operates a democratic system of government.
Democracy, by its character and definition, requires the participation of
the people. However, participation of the people is not satisfied simply
by enabling people to vote during periodic elections. An important
element of democratic participation is when the people are actively
involved both in the electoral process and in the process of governance.
There can be no argument about the fact that the vast
majority of Nigerians feel alienated from the governance process. This
manifests in a variety of ways, including the lack of trust that people
frequently exhibit towards the government, the unwillingness among many
people to perform civic responsibilities, the reluctance to support
government policies which impose some financial burden or other hardships
on the people, etc.
The main reason for this situation is that many Nigerians
do not know what is going on in government and therefore do not feel a
part of it or have a sense of ownership. They do not have the
information, which will enable them to appreciate the basis upon which
policy decisions have been taken or how previous policies have been
implemented.
A democratic government should be an open and accountable
system of governance that gives citizens an opportunity to participate
actively. It is only when people have access to information about
government activities and policies that they can participate in the
process of governance.
Besides the fact that secrecy inhibits public participation
in governance, it also calls into question the legitimacy of the
government. When government officials operate in total secrecy, even if
they genuinely believe that this is in the best interest of the public,
they disconnect from the people and begin to make assumptions about what
the people want and, in all likelihood, those assumptions will be
wrong. I think one can see many instances of this situation in the
events that are taking place around us.
Since governmental activities are supposed to be carried
out for the benefit of the people, they should be involved in the planning
process and must know exactly how things are being done.
To participate in planning processes and be able to
exercise judgment on whether certain plans and schemes are useful for them
or not, people must have sufficient information about the nature of the
projects and programmes. This will enable them to give their opinions in
time for required changes or modifications to be made.
Also, when it operates in secrecy, the government stands
the risk of losing important perspectives from members of the public on
vital issues. Public debate and public input into the process of
formulating government policy are critical in any democratic process,
especially in improving governance. But people need information to
enlighten themselves and to understand what those in government are doing
on their behalf in order for them to be able to engage in any meaningful
discussion of the issues.
It is therefore imperative that a democratic society like
Nigeria should have a system of guaranteeing its citizens access to
information. By introducing such a freedom of information law, the
government will be establishing a process of accountability and
transparency that will ensure that citizen participate in governance.
This will eliminate the possibility of citizens denying knowledge of
governmental action and avoiding their civic duties. They will also have
confidence in projects and activities of the government. This is a
fundamental element of democratic governance, which helps to strengthen
the legitimacy of the government.
Freedom of Information and
Accountability
For the government and
its officials to be considered accountable, Nigerians must have access to
all official information, including those relating to government plans,
activities, sources of revenue, how the revenue is being expended, the
number of people in employment, their salaries and allowances, the amount
of money given to each department of government, how the money has been
spent, statistics and information about public utilities and services,
quasi-governmental bodies and businesses, etc. unless there are compelling
clearly defined reasons why such information should not be made public.
Such exemptions should be for the purpose of protecting some legitimate
interests or preventing actual harm which may be caused by the information
being made public.
Principles of accountability derive from the belief that
citizens can improve the quality of decisions and the policies of those in
authority when there is a process that imposes an obligation on public
officers and other persons exercising authority in the public domain to
account to members of the public for their actions.
In general, the guiding
principle for accountability procedures is that whenever people have
important responsibilities on behalf of a larger community or society,
they have an obligation to answer to stakeholders for their decisions. It
is only reasonable that those in authority account to members of the
society or community for both their intentions and performance. But is
especially so in the public sector where such people work for the society
which pays their salaries.
A Freedom of Information
Act will ensure that people can hold public bodies accountable on a
regular basis, without having to rely for this entirely on other elected
representatives, such as legislators, who are themselves, often unable to
get the information sought in spite of all the resources at their
disposal.
In an ideal democracy, there is a presumption that
everything that is done by the government is done for the public good,
which means that it is done to further the objective of public well-being,
is done honestly with optimum benefits from the funds used. However, as
we know, for many years in this country this presumption has been eroded
to a great extent by misuse, misappropriation and the careless use of
public funds and privileges.
To reverse this situation, it is essential that there
should be complete transparency in all public dealings. A freedom of
information law will bring about a process through which citizens will
have vital information about public revenues and expenditures and will be
track corrupt or wasteful use of public funds. Such an environment is
bound to bring about a more careful utilization and application of funds
as well as privileges.
At the moment, the misdeeds of a few public officers are
reflected in the image of the entire government. The transparency in
government, which a freedom of information law will bring about, will go a
long way in helping to expose the corrupt and allowing honest public
officers to do their jobs without fear of being tainted by their mere
association with other officials in the same government.
Strengthening the Freedom of Information Bill, 2004
Media Rights Agenda would like to propose a number of
modifications to the Freedom of Information Bill 2004 in order to
strengthen the proposed law and ensure effective implementation.
The key issues on which Media Rights Agenda is proposing
modifications to the Bill relate to:
-
The purpose of
the Bill;
-
Exemption
clauses in the Bill; and
-
Applicability
of the Bill to private bodies.
Purpose of the Bill
Although the “Long Title” to the proposed law describes it
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, protect serving public
officers from adverse consequences for disclosing certain kinds of
official information without authorization and establish procedures for
the achievement of those purposes and related purposes thereof,”, the
broad purpose of the Bill, which is to enhance public participation in
governance and improve governance, is not so clearly stated in the text.
Media Rights Agenda hereby recommends that Section 1 of the
Bill be amended and a preamble introduced so that the broad objective of
the Bill will be more clearly stated and the constitutional basis for the
Bill better established. We therefore propose that the following
provisions be introduced at the beginning of the Bill:
WHEREAS the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides that sovereignty belongs to the
people of Nigeria from whom government through the Constitution derives
all its powers and authority:
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to
ensure the participation by the people in their government in accordance
with the provisions of the said Constitution.
1. – (1) There is hereby
enacted by the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria an Act
to promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and
Directive Principles contained in the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria, 1999;
(2) This Act may be cited as the
Freedom of Information Act, 2005.
Exemption
Clauses in the Bill
The Bill rightfully recognizes that certain types of
information and records would need to be exempted from the general right
of access which members of the public would have under the Law and makes
provisions for a range of exemptions in
Sections 13 to 17, 19, 20 and 23.
In broad terms, the Bill exempts from general disclosure
records or information whose disclosure may be injurious to the conduct of
international affairs, defence, law enforcements proceeding and
investigations, the economic interests of Nigeria, or those which contain
personal information, third party information or trade secrets, test
questions or academic examination, and those subject to solicitor/client
privilege.
While it is legitimate to protect these types of
information and records, these exemptions, as outlined in the Bill, appear
too extensive and elaborate as to have the general effect of weakening the
Bill unduly. Media Rights Agenda hereby recommends that the exemptions
should be more tightly worded to eliminate the possibility of their being
abused to unjustifiably withhold information from members of the public.
The access regime should also be improved by the
application of public interest overrides to all exemptions. Public
interest disclosures make it possible for public officers applying the Act
to disclose information, even when this is likely to cause harm to the
interest sought to be protected, where the overall public benefit of
disclosing the information outweighs any potential harm that might be done
to the interest sought to be protected.
The Freedom of Information Bill 2004 provides for public
interest disclosure by public authorities for certain exemptions and for
public interest disclosure by courts of law in some other cases. The
overall picture is one of lack of consistency in the application of public
interest disclosure. This is bound to be confusing for public bodies and
officers implementing the proposed Freedom of Information Act.
Media Rights Agenda therefore recommends that the public
interest provisions in the Bill should be made applicable to all
exemptions and that public bodies and officers implementing the proposed
Act should also be free to decide whether to disclose protected
information in the public interest.
Accordingly, Media Rights Agenda proposes the present
section 13 of the Bill should be substituted with the following new
section 13:
13.- (1) The head of a
government and/or public institution may refuse to disclose any record
requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which
may be injurious to the conduct of international affairs and the defence
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(2) However, such right to refuse the disclosure of any
record requested by an applicant under this Act ceases to exist where the
interest of the public in having the said record being made available to
them outweighs whatever injury disclosing such records would have to the
aforementioned interests.
The present section 14 of the Bill should be substituted
with the following new section 14:
14.- (1) The head of a
government and/or public institution may refuse to disclose any record
requested under this Act that contains-
(a) records compiled by any
government and/or public institution for any law enforcement or
correctional agency for law enforcement purpose or for internal matters of
a government and/or public institution, where the disclosure would deprive
a person or a fair trial or an impartial hearing; or unavoidably disclose
the identity of a confidential source;
(b) information the disclosure
of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the security of
penal institutions.
(c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be
expected to facilitate the commission of a crime.
(2) However, such right to refuse the disclosure of any
record requested by an applicant under this Act ceases to exist where the
interest of the public in having the said record being made available to
them outweighs whatever injury disclosing such records would have to the
aforementioned interests.
The present section 15 of the Bill should be substituted
with the following new section 15:
15.- (1) The head of a
government and/or public institution may refuse to disclose any record
requested under this Act that contains-
(a) trade secret, financial,
commercial, or technical information that belongs to the government of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria or any State or Local Government thereof, and
has substantial economic value which may be seriously diminished by
disclosure;
(b) information the disclosure
of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive
position of a government and/or public institution;
(c) scientific or technical
information obtained through research by an officer or employee of a
government and/or public institution, the disclosure of which could
reasonably be expected to deprive the officer or employee of priority of
publication; or
(d) information the disclosure
of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial
interests of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, or any State or Local
Government thereof, or the ability of the Federal Government, a State or
Local Government to manage its economy, or could reasonably be expected to
result in an undue benefit to any person including but not limited to the
following information-
(i) the currency, coinage or
legal tender of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
(ii) a contemplated change in
the rate of banks interest or in government borrowing;
(iii) a contemplated change in
the tariff rates, taxes, duties or any other revenue sources,
(iv) a contemplated change in
the conditions of operation of financial institutions; and
(v) a contemplated sale or
purchase of securities or of foreign or Nigerian currency.
(2) However, such right to refuse the disclosure of any
record requested by an applicant ceases to exist where the interest of the
public in having the said record being made available to them outweighs
whatever injury disclosing such records would have to the aforementioned
interests.
The present section 16 of the Bill should be substituted
with the following new section 16:
16.- (1) Subject to Subsection
(2), the head of a government and or public institution shall refuse to
disclose any record requested under this Act that contains personal
information. Information exempted under this subsection shall include-
(i) files and personal
information maintained with respect to clients, patients, residents,
students, or other individuals receiving social, medical, educational,
vocational, financial, supervisory or custodial care or services directly
or indirectly from federal agencies or government and or public
institutions;
(ii) personnel files and
personal information maintained with respect to employees, appointees or
elected officials of any government and/or public institution or
applicants for such positions;
(iii) files and personal
information maintained with respect to any applicant, registrant or
licensee by any government and/or public institution cooperating with or
engaged in professional or occupational registration, licensure or
discipline;
(iv) information required of
any tax payer in connection with the assessment or collection of any tax
unless disclosure is otherwise requested by state statute; and
(v) information revealing the
identity of persons who file complaints with or provide information to
administrative, investigative., law enforcement or penal agencies.
(2) The head of a government and/or public institution may
disclose any record requested under this Act that contains personal
information if-
(a) the individual to whom it
relates consents to the disclosure
(b) the information is
publicly available
(c) the person affected is or
was an official of a public body and the information is relevant to the
functions of that person as a public official.
(d) the disclosure of any information referred to in this
section would be in the public interest, and if the public interest in the
disclosure of such information clearly outweighs the protection of the
privacy of the individual to whom such information relates.
The present section 17 of the Bill should be substituted
with the following new section 17:
17.- (1) Subject to this
section, the head of a government and/or public institution shall refuse
to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains–
(a) trade secrets and
commercial or financial information obtained from a person or business
where such trade secrets or information are proprietary, privileged or
confidential, or where disclosure of such trade secrets or information may
cause competitive harm;
(b) information the disclosure
of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with the contractual or
other negotiations of a third party;
(c) proposal and bids for any
contract, grants, or agreement, including information which if it were
disclosed would frustrate procurement or give an unfair advantage to any
person.
(2) The head of a government and or public institution
shall not, pursuant to Subsection (1), refuse to disclose a part of a
record if that part contains the result or product of environmental
testing carried out by or on behalf of a government and/or public
institution.
(3) Where the head of a government and or public
institution discloses a record requested under this Act, or a part
thereof, that contains the results of a product or environmental testing,
the head of the institution shall at the same time as the record or part
thereof is disclosed provide the person who requested the record with a
written explanation of the method used in conducting the test.
(4) The head of a government and or public institution
shall disclose any record requested under this Act, or any part thereof,
that contains information described in sub-Section (1) (a) to (c) if that
disclosure would be in the public interest as it relates to public health,
public safety or protection of the environment and, if the public interest
in disclosure clearly outweighs in importance any financial loss or gain
to, or prejudice to the competitive position of, or interference with
contractual or other negotiation of a third party.
The present section 18 of the Bill should be substituted
with the following new section 18:
18.- (1) The head of a
government and or public institution may refuse to disclose any record
requested under this Act, that contains preliminary drafts, notes,
recommendations, memoranda and other records in which opinions are
expressed, or policies or actions are formulated, where the disclosure of
such information would substantially prejudice the making of a decision,
except that a specific record or relevant portion thereof shall not be
exempted when the record is publicly cited and identified by the head of
the government and/or public institution. The exemption provided in this
subsection extends to all those records of offices and agencies of
National or State Houses of Assembly which pertain to the preparation of
legislative documents.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a record
that contains-
(a) an account of, or a
statement of reasons for a decision that is made in the exercise of a
discretionary power or an adjudicative function and which affect the
rights of a person; or
(b) a report prepared by a
consultant or an adviser who was not, at the time the report was prepared,
an officer or employee of a government and/or public institution or a
member of staff of a Ministry of the Federal Government or Commissioner of
a State Government.
(3) However, the head of a government and or public
institution may disclose any record requested by an applicant where the
interest of the public in having the said record being made available
clearly outweighs whatever harm disclosing such records would otherwise
have to the aforementioned interest.
Section 19 of the Bill should be retained as it is.
The present section 20 of the Bill should be deleted as it
is not clear that it seeks to protect a legitimate interest against
serious harm and there is no apparent injury that would be caused by the
disclosure of the type of information sought to be protected under this
section.
The present section 23 of the Bill should be substituted
with the following new section 23:
23.- (1) The head of a
government and/or public institution may refuse to disclose any record
requested under this Act that contains information pertaining to-
(a) test questions, scoring
keys and other examination data to be used to administer an academic
examination or determine the qualifications of an application for a
license or employment;
(b) architects’ and engineers’
plans for buildings not constructed in whole or in part with public funds
and for buildings constructed with public funds, to the extent that
disclosure would compromise security, and
(c) library circulation and
other records identifying library users with specific materials.
(2) However, such right to refuse the disclosure of any
record requested by an applicant under this Act ceases to exist where the
interest of the public in having the said record being made available to
them outweighs whatever injury disclosing such records would have to the
aforementioned interests.
Applicability of the Bill to Private Bodies.
The Bill applies to all arms of government, namely the
Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, at all levels, namely at the
Federal, State and Local Government. It also applies to private bodies
carrying out public functions.
However, many private bodies, especially multinational
corporations, frequently control budgets which are larger than those of
governments and are accordingly often more powerful than governments.
Non-governmental bodies are also increasingly playing very important roles
in the political, economic and social lives of the country with the result
that their activities have a major impact on the public. It is therefore
necessary to extend the applicability of the proposed law.
Media Rights Agenda recommends that the application of the
proposed law should be extended to cover private bodies in certain
circumstances and in furtherance of this, that the present section 2 of
the Bill should be substituted with the following new section:
2.– (1) Subject to the
provisions of this Act but notwithstanding anything contained in any other
Act, Law, or Regulation, every citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
has a legally enforceable right to, and shall, on request, be given access
to:
(a) records and/or information under the control of a
government or public institution or any body owned, controlled or
substantially financed through funds provided directly or indirectly by a
government. An applicant herein need not demonstrate any specific
interest in the information being requested for.
(b) records and/or information held by or under the control
of a private body, where access to such record or information is
necessary:
(i) for the exercise, enforcement or protection of any
right; or
(ii) to ensure the fulfillment of a public obligation; or
the performance of a public contract.
(2) For the purpose of this Act, any record requested under
this Act that does not exist but can, subject to such limitation as may be
prescribed by regulation, be produced from a machine, readable record
under the control of a government and/or public institution or other body
having custody of the record, using computer hardware and software
normally used by the institution or body shall be deemed to be record
under control of that government and/or public institution or private
body.
Other Corrections Proposed by Media Rights Agenda
On the cover page of the Bill, the third line:
“PROJECT” should be changed to “PROTECT”
In the Long Title of the Bill, the second line:
“PROJECT” should be changed to “PROTECT”
The article “a” should be inserted in the last line of
Section 2(3) of the Bill to read:
(3) For the purpose of this Act, any record requested under
this Act that does not exist but can, subject to such limitation as may be
prescribed by regulation, be produced from a machine, readable record
under the control of a government and or public institution using computer
hardware and software normally used by the government and or public
institution shall be deemed to be a record under control of the
government and/or public institution.
The “s” in the last word in Section 3(1)(c) of the Bill
should be deleted to read:
(c) a description of all
manuals used by employees of the institution in administering or carrying
out any of the programmes or activities of the institution;
The “s” in the last word in Section 3(1)(k) of the Bill
should be deleted to read:
(k) a description of documents
containing opinions concerning the rights of the State, the public,
sub-division of the State or a local government, or of any private person;
The “s” in the word “grants” in the first line of Section
3(1)(m) should be deleted to read:
(m) a
description of files containing applications for any contract, permit,
grant or
agreement;
The “Sections” referred to in the second line of Section 5
should be re-numbered to read:
5.– Where access to record is requested under this Act, the
head of the government and/or public institution to which the request is
made shall, subject to Sections 6, 7, and 9, within seven days after the
request is received-
The “Section” referred to in the first line of Section 6(1)
should be re-numbered to read:
(2) For the purpose of Section 5, where a request is
transferred under Subsection (1) of this section, the request shall be
deemed to have been made to the government and or public institution to
which it was transferred on the day the government and/or public
institution received it.
The “Sections” referred to in the second line of Section 7
should be re-numbered to read:
7.- The head of government
and/or public institution may extend the time limit set out in Section 5
or Subsection 6(1) in respect of a request under this Act for a reasonable
period of time, and in any event not exceeding seven days, if-
The “Section” referred to in the third line of Section 8(1)
should be re-numbered to read:
8.-(1) Where the head of a
government and/or public institution refuses to give access to a record
requested under this Act, or a part thereof, the head of the institution
shall state in the notice given under Section 5 (a) the specific provision
of this Act on which the refusal was based and shall state in the notice
that the person who made the request has a right to have the decision
refusing access reviewed by a Court.
Section 9(1)(c) of the Bill should be deleted in its
entirety as it is superfluous.
The “Section” referred to in the second line of Section
9(2) should be re-numbered to read:
(2) Document shall be furnished without any charge or at a
charge reduced below the fees established under Section 9 (1) (b) if
disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is
likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the
operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the
commercial interest of the requester.
The “s” in the word “portions” in the last line of Section
9(4) should be deleted to read:
(4) Review costs shall include only the direct costs
incurred during the initial examination of a document for the purposes of
determining whether the documents must be disclosed under this section and
for the purpose of withholding any portion exempt from disclosure under
this Act.
The “s” in the word “costs” in the first line of Section
9(5) should be deleted to read:
(5) Review costs may not include any cost incurred in
resolving issues of law or policy that may be raised in the course of
processing a request under this section.
The “Section” referred to in the first line of Section
9(6)(b) of the Bill should be re-numbered and amended to read:
(b) for any request described
in Section 9(1) (a) or (b) for the first two hours of search time or for
the first one hundred pages of publication;
The “s” in the word “records” in the third line of Section
10 of the Bill should be deleted to read:
10.- It shall be a criminal
offence punishable on conviction with 3 years imprisonment for any officer
or the head of any government and/or public institution to which this Act
applies who tries to either willfully destroy any record kept in his/her
custody or attempts to doctor or otherwise alter same before they are
released to any person, entity or community requesting for it.
The “Section” referred to in the first line of Section
11(4) should be re-numbered to read:
(4) Subject to Subsection 12 (1), where a person requests
access to a record in a particular form and, for a reason specified in
Subsection (3) hereof, access in that form is refused but access is given
in another form, the person requesting access shall not be requested to
pay a charge in respect of the provision of access to the record that is
greater than the charge that he would have been required to pay if access
had been given in the form requested.
The “Section” referred to in Section 24 of the Bill should
be re-numbered to read:
24.- An application made under
section 22 shall be heard and determined summarily.
The “Section” referred to in the third line of Section 25
should be re-numbered to read:
25.- Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other Act or enactment or any privilege under the law of
evidence, the Court may, in the course of any proceedings before the Court
arising from an application under Section 22 of this Act, examine any
record to which this Act applies that is under the control of government
and/or public institution, and no such record may be withheld from the
court on any ground.
The “Section” referred to in the first line of Section 26
of the Bill should be re-numbered to read:
26.- In any proceedings before
the Court arising from an application under Section 22, the Court shall
take precaution, including when appropriate, receiving representations ex-parte
and conducting hearings in camera to avoid the disclosure by the Court or
any person of any information or other materials on a basis of which the
head of a government and/or public institution will be authorized to
disclose a part of a record requested under this Act.
The “Section” referred to in the first line of Section 27
of the Bill should be re-numbered to read:
27: In any proceedings
before the Court arising from an application under Section 22, the burden
of establishing that the head of government and/or public institution is
authorized to refuse to disclose a record under this Act or a part thereof
shall be on the government and/or public institution concerned.
The “Section” referred to in the sixth line of Section
31(1) should be re-numbered to read:
31.-(1) The fact that any
record in the custody of government and/or public institution is kept by
that institution under security classification or is classified document
within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act does not preclude it from
being disclosed pursuant to a request for disclosure thereof under the
provisions of this Act, but in every case the head of the government
and/or public institution to which a request for such record is made shall
decide whether such record is of a type referred to in Sections 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 of this Act.
The “s” in the word “determinations” in the last line of
Section 32(1)(a) of the Bill should be deleted to read:
(a) the number of
determinations made by the Government or Public Institution not to comply
with requests for records made to such Government or Public Institution
under this Act and the reasons for each such determination;
The word “text” in Section 34 should be deleted and
replaced with the word “context” to read:
34.- In this Act, unless the
context otherwise requires-
The first section under the “EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM” should
be amended by inserting “1” at the beginning and deleting the phrase “and
non-citizens” in the second line to read:
1. This Bill seeks to provide a right of access to public
information or records kept by government, public institution and/or
private bodies carrying out public functions for citizens of the country.
Conclusion
Media Rights Agenda commends the Senate for the speedy
manner with which it is dealing with the Freedom of Information Bill and
hope that it will be passed in the soonest time possible. We stand ready
to provide any further information or clarification that may be required
by the distinguished members of the Committee on the issues raised in this
presentation or on any other aspect of the Bill.
Presented on behalf of Media Rights Agenda by:
Edetaen Ojo
Executive Director
Mobile: 080 3714 5991
E-mail: edet@mediarightsagenda.org |
