Cybersecurity Funding & National Digital Safety: Using FOI to track investments vs. results by Remmy Nweke – Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS

Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS ... making leadership SENSE with digital news!

In this edition of Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS, REMMY NWEKE investigates Nigeria’s cybersecurity funding and digital safety, and using FOI will uncover how investments align or fail to align with real national protection outcomes.

In today’s hyperconnected world, the integrity of Nigeria’s digital landscape stands as a defining marker of national resilience. From online banking to e-government platforms, from voter registration databases to smart transportation grids, the nation’s future is increasingly written in code and hosted in cyberspace. Yet, as dependency on digital systems grows, so too does vulnerability, and so must accountability.

Over the past decade, Nigeria has witnessed a surge in both government and private-sector spending on cybersecurity. Reports of multimillion-naira allocations appear annually in national budgets, alongside initiatives labeled “cyber defense,” “digital safety,” “critical infrastructure protection,” or “national security modernization.” Unfortunately, the same reports rarely show detailed outcomes or impact metrics.

USPF: Following rural connectivity money through FOI requests by Remmy Nweke - Telecoms Clinic @ITREALMS

Telecoms Clinic @ITREALMS ... making leadership SENSE with digital news!

One of the least discussed yet most consequential drivers of digital inclusion in Nigeria is the Universal Service Provision Fund (USPF), a public fund established to ensure that people in rural, remote, and underserved areas are not left behind in access to communication services.

For more than a decade, the USPF has overseen programmes intended to expand network coverage, provide community ICT centres, support rural base stations, and strengthen last-mile broadband access. Yet, for many Nigerians, the central question remains unanswered: What has been the measurable outcome of these investments?

Review of FOI compliance in telecom regulation (2015–2025) by Remmy Nweke - Telecoms Clinic @ ITREALMS

Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS ... making leadership SENSE with digital news!

This Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS, by REMMY NWEKE, examines a decade of NCC’s FOI compliance, assessing transparency in licensing, tariffs, broadband rollout, and regulatory decisions shaping Nigeria’s telecom governance and consumer rights.

Foreword:
When the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act came into operational enforcement across federal institutions in 2011, expectations were that the telecommunications sector; one of Nigeria’s most strategically influential industries, would set a strong example of transparency and accountability.

The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), as the principal industry regulator, occupies a central role in shaping pricing, service quality, broadband expansion, digital identity systems, spectrum management, and consumer protection. With such authority comes the public right to ask: How open has the Commission been in the last decade?

FOI in Nigeria’s Digital Governance: What law allows citizens to ask by Remmy Nweke - Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS

Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS ... making leadership SENSE with digital news!

This edition of Telecoms Clinic@ITREALMS, by REMMY NWEKE, examines how the FOI Act empowers Nigerians to access information on telecom regulation, pricing, broadband rollout, and digital identity systems; reinforcing transparency as key to consumer rights and national digital development.

Strategic pillars of modern economy:
When conversations on transparency and accountability emerge in Nigeria, national attention often focuses on elections, budgeting, and public procurement. Yet the telecommunications and digital governance sector; one of the most strategic pillars of the modern Nigerian economy, and remains comparatively under-examined. 

This is despite the fact that decisions in this sector affect how Nigerians communicate, access financial services, participate in governance, learn, work, and interact in the digital world.

Media Rights accuses FG over underfunding FoI - ITREALMS

ITREALMS ... making leadership SENSE with digital news!

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has accused the Federal Government of Nigeria, of undermining the effectiveness of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by persistently under-funding its implementation, reports ITREALMS.

MRA also noted that only one percent of Federal public institutions have allocations in their 2025 budget proposals for FOI-implementation and related activities.

FoI: CBN must disclose Forex subsidy information says court - ITREALMS

ITREALMS ... making leadership SENSE with digital news!

The Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled in favor of the Incorporated Trustees of Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA Resource Centre) in a case against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), reports ITREALMS.

The court's decision, based on suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1622/2020, comes after the CBN denied HEDA Resource Centre's Freedom of Information (FoI) request.

FOI Request to NBC: Media Rights demands details of 302 stations sanctioned - ITREALMS

ITREALMS ... making leadership SENSE with digital news!

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has asked the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) to disclose to it under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, 2011 details of the 302 broadcasting stations reportedly sanctioned by the Commission in four months after campaigns for the 2023 elections began in September 2022.

MRA said it was seeking the information following the announcement made by the NBC Director General, Malam Balarabe Shehu Ilelah, at a media briefing he held in Abuja on February 9, 2023, where he was reported to have said that out of the 740 currently functional stations in Nigeria, the Commission had sanctioned 302 stations between September 28, 2022 and January 31, 2023 for various offences.

Federal Civil Service Commission enters enhanced ‘FOI Hall of Shame’ - ITREALMS

ITREALMS: 

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has inducted the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC) into its enhanced Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame and promised to take legal action against the Commission for its blatant disregard of its obligations under the FOI Act in violation of the rights of the public to information, reports ITREALMS.

FOI Programme Manager at MRA, Mr. Ridwan Sulaimon, said despite its responsibility of overseeing a huge federal civil service, the Commission has ignored virtually all its duties as a public institution as defined by the FOI Act, thereby consistently sending a wrong signal to other public institutions under its supervision with the result that, unsurprisingly, many of those public institutions and their officials have themselves repeatedly violated the provisions of the Act.

Noting that the Commission was established by section 153(1) of the 1999 Constitution(as amended) as a federal executive body empowered to appoint persons to offices in the federal civil service and to dismiss or exercise disciplinary control over persons holding such office, Mr. Sulaimon said: “This is a huge responsibility that requires the Commission, which essentially serves as the engine room of the government, to be transparent in order to protect its integrity and enjoy credibility with those it superintends over as well as to comply with all applicable laws and regulations so that it can enforce these and others laws and regulations with respect to the public institutions and officials under its supervision.

According to him, “The Commission can have no credibility in exercising disciplinary control over members of the public service for breaches of relevant laws and regulations and its efforts in this regard cannot be effective when it is itself in breach of its duties and obligations under a Law validly made by the National Assembly. The hypocrisy in such an exercise will be a major encumbrance to the performance of the Commission’s functions and the realization of its objectives.”

Mr. Sulaimon accused the Commission of failing to proactively publish the range of information and documents that it is required to disclose by the Law; refusing to designate an FOI Desk Officer; not providing the appropriate training for its officials on the public’s right of access to information and for the effective implementation of the Act; and consistently neglecting to submit to the Attorney-General of the Federation its annual FOI implementation reports, all of which are mandatory requirements of the Law.

He stressed that it was evident from the website of the Commission that it is in breach of the requirements of section 2(3)f of the FOI Act which imposes an obligation on all public institutions to proactively publish the title and address of the appropriate officer to whom applications for information under the Act should be made by members of the public.

Mr Sulaimon said: “Such level of impunity should not be tolerated in any decent society and it amazes us that a government that expects ordinary citizens and its officials to obey the law allows an institution of the government with such massive coordinating and supervisory roles to get away with such blatant disregard for a valid and subsisting law, thereby presenting an image of a lawless society and a government that condones lawlessness.”

He added that: “An approach to governance in which government officials and institutions disobey the law, sets a bad example for ordinary citizens and robs the government of legitimacy as well as the moral authority to enforce any law against citizens. It is even more disheartening when the law in question is one aimed at fostering transparency and accountability in government and where the government involved is one that claims to be championing a war against corruption.”

Mr. Sulaimon said MRA was extremely concerned that despite an earlier induction of the Commission into the FOI Hall of Shame about two years ago in which the organization highlighted its various transgressions, the Commission had made no effort to improve on its performance in the implementation of the FOI Act and had continued to operate in total disregard for the Law.

According to him, given these circumstances, MRA had no other option but to take legal steps to compel the Commission to comply with its obligations under the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Law.

Ayo Midele/Editor

*JOIN our alert's group | Share stories with us | Advert placement: WhatsApp | SMS: +2348033592762 *Twitter: @ITREALMS *Email: itrealms.dsa@gmail.com*

Foreign Affairs Ministry admitted into ‘FOI Hall of Shame’ - ITREALMS

ITREALMS:

The Nigeria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been just admitted into the Freedom of Information (FOI) “Hall of Shame” for consistently breaching most of its duties and obligations under the FOI Act over the last seven years, reports ITREALMS.

Ms. Chioma Nwaodike, Legal Officer at Media Rights Agenda (MRA), announced the induction of the Ministry into the FOI Hall of Shame in a statement in Lagos, saying the institution had essentially ignored its responsibilities under the FOI Act for most of the past seven years in circumstances that amount go gross dereliction of duty.

The Ministry is a statutory body created as part of the Executive branch of the Federal Government to reinforce foreign decision making and implementation processes in Nigeria and handle the external promotion of Nigeria's domestic vision and ideals. In recent times, the Ministry has also been saddled with the responsibility of increasing international awareness about Nigeria's economic potential.

The Ministry oversees the operations of all Nigeria’s embassies, consular offices and other foreign missions all over the world. The embassies under its charge in all countries where Nigeria has a diplomatic presence would most likely be the point of contact for Nigerians and non-Nigerians in those countries seeking information under the FOI Act.

Ms. Nwaodike stressed that the Ministry has failed to comply with its proactive publication obligations under Section 2 of the Act, which requires all public institutions covered by the Act to publish and periodically update certain categories of information, including on its website. She observed that the Ministry’s website does not contain the categories of information that it is required to publish proactively.

In addition, she said, the ministry has failed to comply with the express provisions of Section 13 of the FOI Act, which mandates the institution to organize training for its staff and officials to sensitize them on the public’s right of access to information and records held by it and to enable the institution’s officials to effectively implement the Act. She noted that there was no indication that the Ministry had conducted such training for its personnel and officials over the last seven years since the Act has been in existence.

Ms. Nwaodike noted that from the website of the Ministry, it is clear that it is also in breach of the requirement of Section 2(3) (f) of the Act for it to proactively publish the title and address of the appropriate officer to whom applications for information under the Act should be made by members of the public, adding that this stipulation is also contained in the Implementation Guidelines for the FOI Act issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation to assist all public institutions in their implementation of the Act.

According to her, from the records available from the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, since the FOI Act was enacted in 2011, the Ministry has only submitted its annual report on its implementation of the FOI Act to the Attorney-General of the Federation once - in 2013, when it should have submitted a total of seven such reports as at February 1, 2018. She said there was no record of the Ministry having submitted any report for any other year.

She described as “unfortunate the fact that the Federal Government ministry responsible for the external promotion of Nigeria's domestic vision and ideals and charged with boosting international awareness about all aspects of Nigeria, including its economic potential and the business opportunities available in the country, and which is likely to be the first point of contact for most foreigners from all parts of the world seeking information about Nigeria, has not instituted mechanisms for responding to information requests from Nigerians and non-Nigerians alike, despite the express provision of the FOI Act, which imposes an obligation on it to do so.”

Ms. Nwaodike insisted that the failure of the Ministry to effectively implement the FOI Act and to put mechanisms in place to enable persons within and outside Nigeria seeking information under the Act to effortlessly apply for and obtain such information amounted to gross dereliction of duty as the provision of such information forms part of the primary reasons for the existence of the Ministry.

Media Rights Agenda launched the FOI Hall of Shame in July 2017 to draw attention to public officials and institutions that are undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act through their actions or inactions, decisions or utterances.

Nenye Dom/GEE

*JOIN our alert's group | Share stories with us | Advert placement: WhatsApp & SMS: +2348033592762 Twitter: @ITREALMS *Email: itrealms.dsa@gmail.com*

NIPOST inducted into ‘FOI Hall of Shame’ - ITREALMS

ITREALMS:

The Nigerian Postal Service (NIPOST) has been inducted into the “Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame” by the Media Rights Agenda (MRA), reports ITREALMS.

This induction, MRA said, is for the institution’s failure to comply with its duties and obligations under the FOI Act, thereby violating the public’s right of access to information.

Also, MRA said in a statement in Lagos made available to ITREALMS that NIPOST was in breach of several provisions of the FOI Act, including failing to designate an appropriate official to receive requests for information from members of the public; and failing to publish the title and contact details of such an official as required by the Act and the Implementation Guidelines issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation.

MRA also accused NIPOST of disregarding its statutory obligation to submit annual reports on its implementation of the Act to the Attorney-General of the Federation; failing to proactively publish the categories of information which it is required to publish by the Act, failing to provide appropriate training for its officials on the public’s right of access to information, among others.

NIPOST was established by Act No. 18 of 1987 to provide and operate facilities for the collection, dispatch and distribution of inland and overseas mail at reasonable cost;  provide and operate facilities for remittance of money through the money or postal order systems; provide and operate philatelic services in Nigeria; print and provide postage stamps for payment of postage tariff and payment of stamp duties and to represent Nigeria in its relations with other postal administrations and other bodies concerned with postal services.

Sadly, MRA said, despite these very critical information and communication services which the institution is mandated to provide to Nigerians and other members of the public, NIPOST has chosen to conduct its business in secrecy and has consistently violated the provisions of the FOI Act since its enactment in 2011.

Mr. John Gbadamosi, MRA’s Programme Officer, said in the statement: “NIPOST, which used to be a department in the Ministry of Communications, should ordinarily constitute a critical pillar in the effective implementation of the FOI Act and stands to benefit from the existence of the Act if it is able to overcome its institutional shortsightedness, the historical incompetence that has dogged its activities and operations for decades and if its management has the resourcefulness to tailor its services to take advantage of a huge opportunity at the disposal of an institution hurtling into extinction as a result of its increasing irrelevance to the society it was established to serve.”

He noted that in addition to complying with the provisions of the FOI Act, as it is obliged to do under the Law, it is also in the enlightened self-interest of NIPOST to promote the Act and its implementation by other public institutions which would result in additional resources for it.

According to Mr. Gbadamosi, “the services that NIPOST was established to provide make it ideally suited to convey applications for information from members of the public all over the country to public institutions in different parts of Nigeria and similarly serve as the vehicle through which public institutions can deliver their responses to such requesters for information at affordable rates that would make it a preferred option for those who currently have to deliver such applications and responses either by courier or through hand deliveries and dispatches.”

Besides, he said, “the money and postal order systems, which are now virtually moribund, could also be easily revived and could become the most viable instruments for members of the public seeking to make payments to public institutions for requested information, which would provide NIPOST with desperately need revenue streams.”

Mr. Gbadamosi noted that although NIPOST claims to have eliminated the incidence of mail theft, pilfering, tampering and other forms of fraudulent activities as a way of boosting customers' confidence, there remains a lack of transparency and accountability in the provision of its service to the public, which have largely remained inefficient.”

He accused NIPOST  of non-compliance with its obligation under the Law to proactively publish 16 categories of information that it is required to publish by Section 2(3) and (4) of the Act, saying “additionally, there is no indication whatsoever that the institution has designated an official to whom requests  for information should be sent while it has also not proactively published the title and address of such an official as the information is not even available on its website.”

Mr. Gbadamosi also pointed out the institution’s failure to comply with its obligation under Section 29 of the Act, which mandates NIPOST, like other public institutions covered by the Act, to submit to the Attorney-General of the Federation, on or before February 1 of each year, a report covering the preceding fiscal year of its implementation of the Act.

He said there was no indication that the NIPOST has provided the appropriate training for its officials on the public’s right of access to information or records held by the Bureau or trained them to effectively implement the Act, as it is required to do by section 13 of the FOI Act.

Mr. Gbadamosi called on the management of the Service to redeem the institution’s image by ensuring that it complies with its duties and obligations under the FOI Act.

MRA launched the “FOI Hall of Shame” on July 3, 2017 to draw attention to public officials and institutions that are undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act through their actions, inactions, utterances and decisions.

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

Court says no to suspension of FOI suit against Lagos - ITREALMS Online

ITREALMS:

For the second time in four months, a Lagos High Court has struck out a motion by the Lagos State Government to suspend proceedings in a Freedom of Information suit brought against it by Media Rights Agenda (MRA) pending the Government’s appeal against the court’s ruling that the FOI Act, 2011 is applicable to the Government of Lagos State and all other States, reports ITRealms.

Justice Beatrice Oke-Lawal, sitting in the Ikeja Judicial Division of the State High Court, struck out the re-listed motion for stay of proceedings on June 20, 2018 for lack of diligent prosecution by the Lagos State Government, which she ordered to pay MRA N30,000 as costs. She had previously struck out the motion for the same reason on February 19, 2018, following which the Government applied to have it re-listed.

The suit arose from an FOI request made by MRA in November 2016 to the Lagos State Ministry of Health asking, among other things, for details of plans by the Ministry to provide the Araromi Zion Estate located in Akiode Area of Ojodu Local Council Development Area (LCDA) with health care services taking into consideration the peculiar needs and circumstances of the community as well as details of the budgets and costs estimates for the implementation of the plans, if any.

When the Ministry failed to respond to MRA’s request despite a reminder issued to it, the organization filed a suit against the Ministry and the Attorney-General of Lagos State asking the Court to declare the Ministry’s refusal to provide it with the information wrongful and compel the institution to disclose the information to the organization in accordance with the FOI Act.

But the Ministry filed a notice of preliminary objection to the suit in which it contended that the court had no jurisdiction to determine the suit and asked that the suit be struck out on the ground, among others, that the FOI Act is not applicable to Lagos State and that the Ministry is not a juristic person that can sue or be sued.

In her ruling on the Ministry’s preliminary objection on November 28, 2017, Justice Oke-Lawal upheld the arguments of MRA’s lawyer, Mrs. Mosunmola Olanrewaju, that the FOI Act was validly enacted by the National Assembly and that it is applicable to the Government of the Federation as well as to State Governments. She also overruled the Government’s claim that the Ministry cannot be sued.

The Lagos State Government thereafter lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Lagos on December 5, 2017, asking it to set aside Justice Oke-Lawal’s ruling which held, among other things, that the FOI Act requires no “domestication” for it to be applicable to States.  The Government and the Ministry also filed a motion on notice asking the court to stay further proceedings in the suit pending the determination of its appeal by the Court of Appeal.

However, on several occasions thereafter, when the motion was slated for arguments, neither the Ministry nor the Attorney-General of the State was represented in court. On February 19, 2018, upon a motion by MRA’s lawyer asking the court to strike out the application for stay of proceedings, the Government’s motion was struck out for lack of diligent prosecution and a date fixed for the hearing of the substantive suit.

But rather than proceed with the substantive suit, the Ministry filed an application in March 2018 asking the court to relist its motion for stay ofproceedings pending appeal. The court granted the application to relist the motion which the State Government then filed again on April 10, 2018.

On two consecutive occasions thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing, neither the Ministry nor its counsel was in court and no letter was written to the court to explain their absence.

On June 20, 2018, when the motion again came up for hearing, neither the Ministry nor the State’s Attorney-General was represented or present in court to move the motion for stay of proceedings.

MRA’s counsel, Ms. Morisola Alaba, reminded the judge that when the matter last came up on May 16, 2018, the Ministry and its lawyers were absent and the court adjourned proceedings till June 20 so that the Ministry would be given a fair opportunity to argue its case consistent with the principles of fair hearing.

She noted that the Ministry again had no representation in court and urged the court to strike out the motion for stay of proceeding for lack of diligent prosecution on the part of the Ministry.  She also prayed the court to set down the substantive case for hearing.

Ms. Alaba accused the Ministry of “intentionally delaying the case while depriving Media Rights Agenda of its right guaranteed by the Freedom of Information Act.”  She urged the court to award substantial costs of N50,000 against the State Government.

In her ruling, Justice Oke-Lawal struck out the State Government’s motion for stay of proceedings for lack of diligent prosecution and awarded costs of N30,000 to MRA against the Government.

The Court thereafter adjourned the case to October 2, 2018 for the hearing of the substantive suit.

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

Surveyor-General Office joins FOI Hall of Shame - ITREALMS Online

ITREALMS:

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has inducted the Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation (OSGOF) into its Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame following a scathing assessment in which it was adjudged to have “failed abysmally in many ways to comply with its obligations under the FOI Act over the last seven years,” reports ITRealms.

Mr. Ayode Longe, MRA’s Programme Director, said in a statement in Lagos that “The OSGOF appears to be one of those public institutions which exist only in name, receiving allocations annually from federal budgets, but performs no real functions, provides no discernible service to the Government or people of Nigeria, generates no income for the country, and stimulates no development in any known or visible area.”

According to Mr. Longe, the irrelevance and non-functioning state of the institution is evidenced by its website (http://www.osgof.gov.ng/), which was generally last updated about four years ago, in 2014 with the only more recent update being a posting on September 21, 2016, announcing that “Surv. (Dr.) E. B. Awudu, fnis, mni was appointed the Surveyor General of the Federation in  April, 2015.”

The OSGOF describes itself as an Extra-Ministerial Office under the supervision of the Federal Ministry of Works which assumed its current status vide Federal Executive Council conclusion No. EC 17 (05)8, dated April 27, 2005.

It says its primary assignments are: the provision of requisite geo-information in right quantity, quality and format in real time for national development and decision making in all sectors; delineation, demarcation and maintenance of interstate and international boundaries and co-ordination and harmonization of all surveying and mapping activities in the country.

Mr. Longe said: “with the information generated and published on the OSGOF’s website so hopelessly out of date, even if the institution actually produces any geo-information, it might be a mistake for the Federal Government to rely on such information for national development and decision-making, especially also given the image of a very incompetent institution that the OSGOF projects of itself.”

He noted that although the OSGOF has published information concerning its operations, departments and zonal offices on its website, they are information that respond to just one of the 16 classes of records and other information that the FOI Act requires every public institution to publish proactively.

According to him, the information proactively disclosed by the OSGOF do not satisfy the full categories of information listed for proactive publication in the FOI Act, and especially not the most important set of information among the various items.

For instance, Mr. Longe said, the website does not contain information relating to the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds of the institution; the names, salaries, titles, and dates of employment of all employees and officers of the OSGOF; or the list of files containing applications for any contract, permit, grants, licenses or agreement, among several others listed in Section 2 (3) of the FOI Act as information that must be proactively published.

He also noted that there is nothing whatsoever on the website to indicate to a visitor or members of the public that the OSGOF has appointed an officer to receive and process Freedom of Information requests from members of the public, although this is required to be published with the name, title and contact details of such an official, in accordance with Section 2 (3) (f) of the FOI Act.

Mr. Longe said in addition to the fact that the information is not available on its website, the OSGOF has also not supplied the name and address of its FOI Desk Officers to the Attorney-General of the Federation despite repeated requests from the Federal Ministry of Justice with the result that those details are not contained in the Database of FOI Desk Officers of Public Institutions made available to Media Rights Agenda by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

He castigated the OSGOF for having failed to submit any report detailing its implementation of the FOI Act to the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation for seven consecutive years since the Law came into force and accused the institution of violating another of its important obligations, as contained in Section 29 of the FOI Act.

Mr. Longe said:  “The failure of the OSGOF to submit its annual FOI implementation reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation and publish them proactively as required by Law makes it impossible to determine the number of requests for information that the institution has received from members of the public and how many of them it has acceded to; the number of such applications it refused to grant and how many of those cases went to court, among other related details that its reports should contain, as required by Section 29(1)(a-h) of the Act.”

He noted that there is no indication that the OSGOF has provided any training for its officials on the public’s right of access to information and for the effective implementation of the FOI Act, in accordance with Section 13 of the Act.

Mr. Longe stressed that “the OSGOF has failed abysmally in many respects to comply with its obligations under the FOI Act over the last seven years since the Law was passed, thereby bringing itself into ridicule and seeking to perpetuate a culture of impunity which continues to rob the government of public trust and confidence.”

He therefore called on the relevant committees of the National Assembly to institute measures to ensure that the OSGOF and other public institutions which are failing to comply with their obligations under the FOI Act are compelled to fully implement the Law.

Launched in July 2017, the FOI Hall of Shame shines the spotlight on public officials and institutions undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act through their actions, inactions, utterances and decisions. 

Uj. N. Dominic/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

FOI Hall of Shame: National Library inducted

ITREALMS:

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has named the National Library of Nigeria (NLN) this week’s inductee of the “Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame” for its failure to fully implement the FOI Act, 2011, reports ITREALMS.

MRA’s Programme Officer, Mr. Idowu Adewale, announced the induction in a statement in Lagos, saying “The National Library, whose vision is to ensure the building of an informed and enlightened citizenry through the provision of information resources that are readily available and easily accessible ought not to be found in violation of a law like the FOI Act, which is so aligned with its institutional objectives. Rather, it should position itself as an institution that promotes the Act and sets an example for other public institutions to follow.”

The National Library was established by the National Library Act of 1970 to provide the nation with a source of intellectual support and stimulus for advancement in all fields of human endeavour, particularly in academic, social, cultural, scientific and technological enterprise and also provide comprehensive and rich collection for reference and research in all fields within and beyond the nation's physical boundaries as well as to ensure for the nation a place in the community of nations which depends on knowledge and original ideas for survival.

According to Mr. Adewale, of the five broad categories used in assessing the National Library’s compliance with the provisions of the FOI Act, it was only on the level of responsiveness to requests for information from members of the public that the institution recorded a positive performance.

Information available to MRA shows that the National Library responded to a request for information dated January 18, 2016, which was made by Public and Private Development Centre (PPDC), an Abuja-based non-governmental organisation, for records of payments released to the institution for capital projects in 2015.

Similarly, the National Library also responded to a request dated July 14, 2016, made to it by the same organisation, asking for the list of contracts awarded by the NLN in 2015 and its procurement plan for 2016.

MRA commended the institution for its responsiveness to those requests for information but observed that it performed woefully overall by failing to comply with all its other duties and obligations as a public institution within the meaning of the FOI Act.

Highlighting other categories where the National Library failed to live up to its obligations under the FOI Act, Mr. Adewale noted that since the enactment of the Law in 2011, the institution has not submitted any annual report on its implementation of the Law to the Attorney-General of the Federation, as required by section 29 of the Act.

Mr. Adewale said the institution’s non-compliance with its obligation to submit FOI implementation reports annually makes it impossible to determine the number of applications for access to information that it has received for each year since 2011 and the number of such applications that it processed and granted for any particular year or overall, besides those made by the PPDC, which the non-governmental organization itself had publicised.

He cited the “Contact Details of Freedom of Information (FOI) Desk Officers in Public Institutions in Nigeria” released by the Attorney-General of the Federation as proof that the National Library has not complied with Section 2(3)(f) of the FOI Act, which mandates every public institution to designate an appropriate officer as well as to publish the title and address of such an officer to whom applications for information by members of the public should be sent.

In addition, Mr. Adewale said, the National Library has failed to proactively publish either on its website or anywhere else, the categories of information that Section 2(3) and (4) of the FOI Act requires all public institutions to proactively publish and disseminate widely to members of the public through various means, including print, electronic and online sources.

He expressed concern that the “National Library, which ought to be playing a significant role in ensuring that the FOI Act is effective, has chosen to disregard Section 13 of the Act which requires every public institution to ensure the provision of appropriate training for its officials on the public’s right of access to information and for the effective implementation of the Act.”

Mr. Adewale urged the Board of the National Library to take urgent steps to ensure that all its staff are appropriately trained on the public’s right of access to information and that it complies fully with all its other obligations under the FOI Act as well as under the Guidelines on the Implementation of the FOI Act, 2013, issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation.

By doing this, he contended, the FOI Act will provide the National Library with the opportunities to further assert and strengthen its relevance in providing information to the citizens.

MRA launched the FOI Hall of Shame in July 2017, to shine the spotlight on public officials and institutions that are undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act through their actions, inactions, utterances and decisions.

Ayo Midele/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

NPF Pensions inducted into ‘FOI Hall of Shame’

ITREALMS:

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has named the NPF PensionsLimited as this week’s inductee into its “Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame” for the opacity of its operation in violation of the provisions of the FOI Act, reports ITRealms.

MRA also said the institution’s practice of operating in secrecy was also contrary to its own core values, which include transparency and accountability.

MRA’s Project Director, Mr. Segun Fatuase, noted in a statement in Lagos that since the establishment of the NPF Pensions Limited, following the passage of the FOI Act into Law in 2011, the institution has consistently undermined the objectives of the Act by conducting its business in secrecy.

According to Mr. Fatuase, the NPF Pensions Limited was incorporated on October 21 2013, with a fully paid share capital of N1 billion and with two major shareholders, the Nigeria Police Welfare Insurance Cooperative Society Limited and the Nigeria Police Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited.  The NPF Pensions Limited was established with the approval of the Federal Government as a Pension Fund Administrator to cater to the unique needs of the Police following inadequacies in the current Contributory Pension Scheme and earlier pension schemes.

He said since the institution was established, it had consistently flouted Section 2 of the FOI Act which requires all public institutions to proactively disclose certain types of information to the public and to update these categories of information whenever changes occur as well as to make such information readily available to the public through the various means listed in the Act, namely print, electronic, online methods and at the offices of the organization.  He added that the NPF Pensions Limited has failed to publish the information that it is required to proactively disclose under this section.

Mr. Fatuase observed that the NPF Pensions Limited has also failed to proactively disclose information relating to its receipt or expenditure of its public or other funds and a range of other types of information, as required by section 2(3)(d)(v) of the FOI Act.

He accused the organisation of failing to comply with Section 2(3) (f) of the Act which requires all public institutions such as the NPF Pensions Limited to designate an appropriate officer to whom applications for information under the Act should be sent and the institution to proactively publish the title and address of such an officer.

Besides, Mr. Fatuase said: “There is no indication whatsoever that the NPF Pensions Limited   has provided the requisite training for its officials on the public’s right of access to information or records held by it or that it has appropriately trained its officials to effectively implement the Act, as it is required to do by Section 13 of the Act.”

He criticized the NPF Pensions Limited for flagrantly violating Section 29 of the FOI Act, which places an obligation on all public institutions to submit annual reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation on their implementation of the Act, noting that “since the Act was passed into Law nearly seven years ago, the NPF Pensions Limited has not submitted any report to the Attorney-General of the Federation or issued any such report for any year.”

Mr. Fatuase said: “Such blatant disregard for a statutory obligation should not be permitted in any form under the rule of law. It is a conduct capable of bringing the Government to ridicule as it creates the impression that rules, laws and regulations are of no consequence because public institutions and the officials who preside over them are at liberty to ignore such rules, laws and regulations.”

He also observed that the failure of the NPF Pensions Limited to submit its annual reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation has made it virtually impossible to determine the number of applications for access to information that it has received for each year since the Act was passed into Law and the number of such applications that it processed and granted for any particular year or overall.

Mr. Fatuase stressed that there was no justifiable excuse for the NPF Pensions Limited’s refusal to fulfill its duties and obligations under the FOI Act and called on the relevant authorities of the Federal Government to take stern measures to address the situation.

Launched in July 2017, the FOI Hall of Shame shines the spotlight on public officials and institutions that are undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act through their actions, inactions, utterances and decisions. 

Chuks Egbune/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

For cult-like operations, Petroleum Equalization Fund enters FOI Hall of Shame

ITREALMS:

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has inducted the Petroleum Equalisation Fund (Management) Board into its Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame, accusing the Board of refusal to be transparent and preference for cult-like secrecy in its operations, reports ITRealms.

The induction, MRA said, only serves to heighten questions about its continued relevance in light of its failure to achieve the objectives for which it was established.

The Board was established in 1975 by Decree No. 9 of 1975, which was later amended in 1989 by Decree No. 32 of 1989, to offset the inequality in the transportation cost of distributing petroleum products in different parts of Nigeria in order for the Government to be able maintain a uniform pricing system for such products all over the country.

The primary responsibility of the Board is to reimburse petroleum marketing companies for any losses suffered by them, solely and exclusively, as a result of their selling petroleum products at uniform prices throughout the country.

The mandate of the Board is therefore to ensure that the Uniform Pricing Mechanism that the Federal Government introduced during the period worked effectively throughout Nigeria and that each marketing company complied with the laws regarding the management of the transportation equalisation process.

In a statement in Lagos, MRA’s Legal Officer, Ms Chioma Nwaodike, noted that “More than 40 years after the Board was established, it is clear that it has failed to deliver on the objectives that motivated its establishment, given that the pricing of petroleum products has never been uniform across the country all through these years. Perhaps, some transparency about the activities of the Board may have enabled us to understand what exactly it does and whether there is any reason for its continued existence in light of its apparent spectacular failure.”

According to Ms Nwaodike, “having been charged with the responsibility for reimbursing petroleum marketing companies for losses suffered by them as a result of their sale of petroleum products at uniform prices throughout the country, for which it is expending public funds in this regard, the Board owes Nigerians a duty to keep them informed about every aspect of its operations including what it gets annually from the national budget, how much it is expending for various purposes, who the beneficiaries of its reimbursement scheme are, how the reimbursements are calculated, among other things. Unfortunately, it is not doing this.”

She accused the Board of flouting and rendering meaningless its mission statements to its various stakeholders, including its statement to marketers “to be a prime and transparent organization, for the timely reimbursement of marketers’ transportation claims” as well as its statement to Nigerians to be “a responsible, accountable and efficient parastatal facilitating the distribution of petroleum products nationwide at approved prices”.

Ms Nwaodike said by brazenly neglecting to comply with its statutory obligations under the FOI Act, the Board makes nonsense of its mission statement where it says it aims to be a “transparent organization” and an “accountable and efficient parastatal” as well as listing ‘integrity’ as one of its core values.

She observed that by consistently failing over the past seven years to comply with its proactive publication obligations in Section 2 (3), (4) and (5) of the FOI Act to publish and disseminate 16 classes of information as well as review and update them whenever changes occur, the Board is demonstrating its clear disdain for the laws of the land, the ideals of democracy, and the core values it claims guide its operations.

According to her, “although the Board has published information that can best be described as innocuous, it however failed to publish some vital information that the Act requires it to proactively publish and disseminate including, but not limited to, documents containing information relating to the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds of the institution; documents containing the names, salaries, titles and dates of employment of all employees and officers of the institution; and a list of files containing applications for any contract, permit, grants, licenses or agreements, etc.”

Ms Nwaodike noted that the Board has also refused to submit to the Attorney-General of the Federation any report on its implementation of the Act for seven consecutive years, in clear defiance of Section 29 (1) and (2) of the FOI Act and the Guidelines on the Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 issued by the Attorney General of the Federation, the oversight agency for the FOI Act, as the Board has neither submitted any report nor made any such report available to the public in any form whatsoever.

She also accused the Board of not providing appropriate training for its officials on the public’s right of access to information and for the effective implementation of the Act at any time in all the seven years that the law has been in operation, as it is required to do under Section 13 of the FOI Act.

Noting that there is no single reference to the FOI Act on the Board’s website, Ms Nwaodike observed that the Board has acted over the last seven years as if the Law does not exist and continued to conduct its functions and operations in cult-like secrecy.

Chuks Egbune/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

FOI hall of shame inducts NAICOM

ITREALMS:

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has named the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) as the latest inductee into its “Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame” reports ITRealms.

This is coming as MRA warned that the pervasive culture of lack of compliance with the FOI Act is eroding public trust in the government and its agencies.

MRA’s Programme Officer, Mr. John Gbadamosi, told ITRealms that NAICOM’s selection by MRA’s Programme Team, was based on the Commission’s failure to live by its core values which include transparency, integrity and efficiency, having also failed to implement and comply with most of its obligations under the FOI Act while denying citizens the right to obtain information from it.

Mr. Gbadamosi said: “We are extremely concerned that there appears to be an endless stream of public institutions just waiting to be inducted into the Freedom of Information Hall Shame, a recognition that no self-respecting institution should desire.”

He noted that “It is particularly worrisome that a public institution like NAICOM, established to foster public trust and confidence in the insurance system, prefers to operate in secrecy and disregard a fundamental law of the land aimed at enabling the public to access information about government and its agencies.”

Mr. Gbadamosi argued that in the face of such a pervasive attitude among so many public institutions, it is difficult for citizens to believe that government bodies are actually conducting their business in the interest of the public and that citizens can trust them.

He said: “It is apparent the public cynicism towards the government is on the increase as public trust and confidence in the government is being eroded at an alarming rate. There is no doubt that the lack of transparency and accountability is largely responsible for this situation as many agencies of government are decidedly but unnecessarily being secretive about their affairs.”

NAICOM is an agency of the Federal Government established by the National Insurance Commission Act of 1997 andtasked with responsibility for ensuring the effective administration, supervision, regulation and control of insurance business in Nigeria.

Itemizing NAICOM’s breaches of the FOI Act and its transparency obligations, Mr. Gbadamosi noted that: “Although the Commission has published some of its operational guidelines along with other financial reports, it has not fulfilled the rest of its proactive disclosure obligations under Section 2 of the FOI Act as it has not published either on its website or anywhere else, other categories of information that are part of the 16 classes of information that the Act requires all public institutions to proactively publish and disseminate widely to members of the public through various means, including print, electronic and online sources”.

In particular, he pointed out that the Commission has not designated an officer to whom requests for information should be sent, and has also not proactively published the title and address of the officer either on its website or anywhere else, as required by Section 2(3)(f) of the Act and the FOI Implementation Guidelines issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation.

Mr. Gbadamosi also accused the Commission of failing to comply with its obligation under Section 29 of the Act by failing to submit any of the seven reports it ought to have submitted as of February 1, 2018 to the Attorney- General of the Federation on its implementation of the FOI Act since the enactment of the Law in 2011.

He cited information from the Public and Private Development Centre (PPDC), an Abuja-based non-governmental organisation, indicating that NAICOM has not consistently responded to requests for information.

For instance, Mr. Gbadamosi said, NAICOM did not respond to a request for information dated January 30, 2015, made by PPDC under the FOI Act in which the organization asked for details of the sums approved for the Commission as capital warrants in the first, second, third and fourth quarters of 2014.

He recounted that NAICOM also failed to respond to an FOI request made to it on August 16, 2016 by PPDC, which asked for the list of contracts awarded by it in the year 2015 and the procurement plan within its approval threshold for the year 2016.

He added that although PPDC sent a reminder about the request to NAICOM on September 5, 2016, there has been no response till date.

Mr. Gbadamosi said NAICOM also refused to respond to another application for information made on January 25, 2017 by PPDC, requesting records of payment for capital projects released to it in 2016, the list of contracts awarded by NAICOM in 2016 and the procurement plan within its approval threshold for the year 2017.

He contended that since the requested information did not fall under any of the exemptions in the Act, it can be deduced that the only logical reason why the Commission refused to provide the information or respond to the request is its total disregard for the FOI Act and other laws of Nigeria, adding that “the information should ordinarily have been proactively published both under the Public Procurement Act, 2007 and Section 2 of the FOI Act”

Mr. Gbadamosi noted that NAICOM has also failed to comply with Section 13 of the FOI Act, which requires all public institutions to train their officials on the public’s right of access to information and to equip relevant officials with the skills to ensure the effective implementation of the Act.

MRA called on the management of NAICOM to take urgent measures to improve the image of the Commission by putting systems in place to ensure that it complies with all its obligations under the FOI Act and the guidelines issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation.

It also urged the Attorney-General of the Federation to step up his efforts at ensuring the effective implementation of the FOI Act by ensuring that NAICOM and other public institutions to which the Act applies comply with and implement its provisions.

Launched on July 3, 2017, the FOI Hall of Shame focuses attention on public officials and institutions that are undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act through their actions, inactions, utterances and decisions.

Nonye Dom/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!