OP-ED;Ten Years Later, How has the Freedom of Information Act fared?

In May 28, 2011, after the longest legislative session in the history of Nigeria that lasted for twelve hours, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was signed into law, joining a league of democratic nations that have enacted this law. 

The FOIA makes access to public records and information possible by obligating public authorities to make certain information about their records and activities available to the public, as well as giving the public the right to request for this information. Ten years after enacting the FOIA, which seeks to promote transparency, its results have been mixed. From the rush in applications to use this law, to the access it has granted individuals and bodies to certain information, as well as the subsequent obviousness of the need for reforms that will enhance its right use, the FOIA has yielded positive and negative effects.  

In July 2012, Uzoegwu F.O.C.Esq sued the Central Bank of Nigeria for refusing to present information that contains the salary and allowances of the Governor, Deputy Governor, and Directors of the Central Bank of Nigeria. 

The respondent to the Central Bank of Nigeria claimed that such information is classified and should not be made public. However, with the FOIA, the court ordered that Uzoegwu be furnished with every information about the salaries and allowances of the heads of the Central Bank of Nigeria. This is one of many victories that have followed the enactment of the FOIA, as the law seeks to enhance transparency and openness of public authorities.

Nevertheless, as much as Uzoegwu's court victory is worth celebrating, it has not been a complete success for the FOIA as the ambiguity and indefiniteness of some sections of the law have stunted the progress the act seeks to make. This is proven by the plethora of unending court cases that now flood the judiciary as a result of the various perspectives and interpretations that have been drawn from the act. There are presently two court judgments that directly contradict each other and have slowed the pace of the FOIA in ensuring accountability of government bodies. 

The first is a judgment ruling that the act is federal and cannot be applied at the state level, while the second supports the right of individuals to demand information at the state level. It is safe to say that certain bodies and persons have hidden under these weaknesses to restrict the right of the people to information, which is evident in the slow pace of FOIA-related cases in court. This confusion has further given room for disobedience of court rulings and injunctions that give the right to information.

Furthermore, it is surprising and ironic that a decade after the enactment of the FOIA, sixteen "democratic states" have not domesticated this law that clearly upholds every democratic tenet. This has limited the impact of the FOIA in no small way as this percentage forms half of the entire country.

The FOIA, on its own, is no doubt a landmark in the progress of our democracy – Uzoegwu's case rightly proves it. 

However, Nigerians will enjoy the full dividends of democracy when all issues preventing the effective use of the law are duly attended to. As fast as possible, there should be reforms of the various acts that are ambiguous and not clearly spelled out, as this will put an end to the lingering cases on FOIA in courts.

 Also, press and media agencies, as well as other civil societies, should put pressure on the remaining states to domesticate the FOIA. When these steps are taken, transparency, accountability, and openness will be the order of the day.