For Reps, The Fear Of FoI Bill Is...

On Tuesday, April 29, 2008, the House of Representatives inflicted a major setback on Nigerians who have for several years consistently clamoured for the institutionalisation of a transparent and accountable governance process in Nigeria through the enactment of a Freedom of Information (FoI) Bill. The House voted to jettison further consideration of the Freedom of Information Bill in the Committee of the Whole.

The factual account of that Tuesday's proceeding is that members of the House under the leadership of the Deputy Speaker, Hon. Bayero Nafada, decided that the FoI Bill should not be considered in the Committee of the whole, much against an earlier decision of the House taken late last year, when the House, in its wisdom, voted in favour of a motion moved by Hon. CID Maduabum, Chairperson of the House Public Petitions Committee, to take the Bill in the Committee of the whole.

Order XV, Rule 8 of the Standing Orders of the House provides that "Bills passed by the preceding Assembly and forwarded to the Senate for concurrence, for which no concurrence were made or negatived, or passed by the Senate and forwarded to the House, for which no concurrence were made or negatived or which were passed by the National Assembly and forwarded to the President for assent but for which assent or withholding thereof was not communicated before the end of the tenure of the Assembly, the House may resolve that such Bills upon being re-gazetted or clean copy circulated, be re-considered in Committee of the whole without being commenced de-novo."

Consequently, it is clear that what occurred on that Tuesday is tantamount to the House of Reps reversing itself on an earlier decision taken, without providing anxious Nigerians, desirous of having this law, any explanation on the rationale for such reversal.

Nigerians the world over are keen to find out what really transpired on April 29. What were the undercurrents and underlying factors that were responsible for this decision?

Is the Bill still alive or dead in the House of Reps? Where do we go from here? Is this the end of the FoI crusade in Nigeria? What does this development portend for countries like Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, et al, all of which following the example, hitherto set by Nigeria, had also started considering enacting FoI Bills into law?

This decision also makes a mockery of recent attempts by members of the House of Representatives at portraying the House as being committed to enthroning a new culture of transparent and accountable governance in the public service, through its ongoing probe of several key sectors of the Nigerian economy, i.e. the power sector - NIPP Projects; the oil, maritime and transport sectors, to name just a few.

The FoI Bill, which has the singular distinction of being older than Nigeria's current Fourth Republic has been in the legislative process for nine years. It was introduced into the National Assembly at the commencement of the current republic in 1999. It has survived two sets of parliamentarians in the National Assembly; with the current set of legislators being the third set that would be considering the Bill. However, in all its nine years legislative history, this Bill has never had it so bad or seen such crass lack of will and failure of commitment by any group of parliamentarians to pass this Bill and by so doing, enable Nigerians enjoy its immense benefits.

With the recent development in the House of Representatives, it would seem that under the current National Assembly, the Bill is getting a much better treatment in the Senate where it is still alive and is being considered by the Senate Committee on Media and Information, even though this same Committee has exceeded the time frame given to it by the Senate to report to the Senate on its review of the Bill, for consideration by the Senate for third reading.

Having said these though, one wonders whether a similar fate awaits the FoI Bill in the Senate, as has occurred in the House of Reps, when the Bill comes up for third reading in the Senate; after the Committee would have concluded its work on the Bill.

We are not impressed by various accounts given in news reports in several newspapers the next day, April 30, of statements credited to key actors in the leadership of the House of Representatives that essentially seek to downplay the full import of what took place in the House of Reps on 29 April. It demonstrates an attempt by the leadership and members of the House of Representatives to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, as to whether the Bill is still alive or dead in the House of Representatives.

It is important to respond to some arguments put forward by the leadership of the House as reported by the media; principal amongst which is the fact that the consideration of the Bill in the Committee of the Whole was only deferred to another opportune time in the legislative calendar. However, this position is quite misleading because the factual account of the statement credited to the Deputy Speaker, when he put the question to his colleagues was, "Should we take this Bill in the Committee of the Whole?" And his decision based on the response from the floor, was that, "the Nays, have it," which effectively meant the end of the Bill's current journey in the legislative process in the House of Reps.

Nowhere have we read in the news reports of the proceedings in the House that the Deputy Speaker, as the presiding officer, either qualified the question, by asking if the issue should be deferred to another legislative day, or asked the same question as a follow-up to his only question, which would then have grounded the interpretation credited to some members of the House leadership.

One also fails to understand why the Deputy Speaker found it necessary to put the question to his colleagues, having regard to the fact that the House had already decided that issue on Wednesday, November 14, 2007, when it voted that the Bill be taken in the Committee of the Whole and there was no fresh motion before the House to revisit the issue.

Also in the report credited to the Deputy Speaker in the media, he is believed to have flown a kite, suggesting "we are at liberty to use all options within the rules to make our laws. We may take it up during the constitution review process."

It is important to state very clearly that in sister African countries, such as South Africa and Uganda, amongst others, where there is a constitutional right of access to information, that has not obviated the need to enact specific FoI legislation stipulating how this constitutional right is implemented in practice; hence both countries have freedom of information legislation in addition to constitutional guarantee of this right.

Consequently, it is our humble submission that there is no basis for the Deputy Speaker flying a kite to the effect that there is justification for halting the process of enacting this law because the National Assembly wants to consider it as part of the constitutional review process. There is nothing stopping the National Assembly from passing the FoI legislation now, while also inserting a constitutionally protected right of access to information, which would basically serve the purpose of reinforcing this right.

There are several experiences in our national life that effectively ground the need for both an FoI legislation as well as a constitutional right of access to information. A key example of this was what occurred during most of the election petition cases in the last elections where the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) refused most petitioners the opportunity of inspecting election-related materials and documents in its custody, which the petitioners needed to prove their cases before the election petition tribunals. But for the intervention of the tribunals, which gave specific orders compelling INEC to grant the petitioners access to these documents, it would have been impossible for most of them to prove the substance of their petitions before such tribunals. This is one instance, amongst several others, including the fallout of ongoing probe being conducted by both chambers of the National Assembly, that clearly shows the dangers inherent in the absence of such a law in Nigeria and this should be of concern to all, including politicians of which our legislators are part.

The fate of the FoI Bill in the House of Representatives represents one of the darkest days of legislative proceedings in Nigeria's Fourth Republic. The Hon Dimeji Bankole-led House of Representative has lost a unique opportunity to build on the moral high ground that it gained with its recent actions post the Ettehgate saga, and by so doing failed Nigerians when it mattered most.

We urge the House of Representatives to heed the voice of reason by not only getting the FoI Bill back on the legislative agenda but also passing it promptly; so as to show that they do honestly listen to the yearnings of the people and are a responsive House. Anything short of this would amount to a colossal failure on the part of the House to meet the yearnings of Nigerians for a transparent and accountable system of governance, which is the hallmark of a true democracy.

• For Reps, The Fear Of FoI Bill Is...
  
  
• Joinder Of Counts May Not Cause Miscarriage Of Justice
  
  
• NBA Sets Tone For Rights Enforcement Rules