MRA inducts CommTech into ‘FOI Hall of Shame’ - ITREALMS

MediaWatch@ITREALMS:

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has inducted the Federal Ministry of Communication Technology into its “Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame”, accusing the Ministry of extremely poor performance in its implementation of the Act over the last seven years, reports ITREALMS.

MRA’s Programme Officer, Mr. Idowu Adewale, announced the selection of the Ministry as this week’s inductee in a statement issued in Lagos, saying “the Ministry’s overall performance in the implementation of the FOI Act since the enactment of the Law in 2011 has been extremely poor and certainly falls far short of what is required of public institutions covered by the Act”.

According to Mr. Adewale, MRA’s analysis of the Attorney-General of the Federation’s annual statutory reports to the National Assembly on the implementation of the FOI Act between 2011 and 2017, shows that out of the seven annual reports which the Ministry ought to have submitted to the Attorney-General under Section 29 of the Act as of February 1, 2018, the Ministry has only submitted one report for 2011 to date.

The Ministry, established in 2011, is charged, amongst other things, with the tasks of fostering a knowledge-based economy and information society in Nigeria; facilitating ICT as a key tool in the transformation agenda for Nigeria in the areas of job creation, economic growth and transparency of governance as well as creating and formulating policies that will propel the Nigerian economy to a digitized economy.

Explaining the reasons for the Ministry’s induction, Mr. Adewale said the institution was assessed based on its level of compliance with its duties and obligations in five areas of the FOI Act and the Attorney-General’s Guidelines on the Implementation of the Act, which are: its obligation to provide information to members of the public on request, its duty to submit annual implementation reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation, its proactive publications obligations; its duty to train its staff and officials on the public’s right of access to information as well as its obligation to designate an FOI Desk Officer and proactively publish the title and address of the official.

Noting that the Ministry performed woefully in most of the categories, he added that the failure of the institution to consistently submit its annual implementation reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation had also made it impossible to determine the number of applications for information that it has received, the number of such applications that it processed as well as the number of requests for information it has granted or denied over the years.

Mr. Adewale accused the Ministry of breaching section 2 of the FOI Act, which requires all public institutions to proactively publish some categories of information even without anyone making any request for such information as well as to update such information regularly and whenever changes occur.

Explaining the potential benefits of the Ministry complying with its proactive disclosure obligations, he stressed that if it fulfils this obligation, it would find that the pressure on it arising from receiving and having to process too many FOI requests would be considerably reduced.

He accused the Ministry of not having published either on any its website, or anywhere else, the 16 categories of information that it is required by the Act to publish and disseminate widely to members of the public through various means, including print, electronic and online.

According to him, although Section 13 of the FOI Act requires every government or public institution to ensure the provision of appropriate training for its officials on the public’s right of access to the information and records that it holds for the effective implementation of the Act, these there is no indication that the Ministry has fulfilled this obligation as there is no information available about its training of its staff on the Act.

On the Ministry’s obligation to designate an FOI Desk Officer, Mr. Adewale said although the Database of FOI Desk Officers available at the Federal Ministry of Justice, which is the oversight institution for the implementation of the FOI Act, shows that the Ministry has designated an official to whom requests for information should be made, the Ministry itself has failed to publish the title and address of the officer on its website or anywhere else, as required by Section 2(3)(f) of the Act.

He urged, the Ministry to make good use of its website to proactively publish those categories of information which the Act requires all public institutions to proactively disclose, adding that by so doing, the Ministry would not only put itself in a good stead as regards the implementation of the FOI Act, but would also lessen the burden of repeatedly processing individual requests for information from citizens touching on those issues.

Mr. Adewale called upon the Minister of Communication Technology, Mr. Adebayo Shittu, to take urgent steps to ensure the provision of appropriate training for the staff and officials of the Ministry so as to acquaint them with their duties and obligations under the FOI Act, which would hopefully lead to improved compliance with and implementation of the Act by the Ministry.

Launched in July 2017, the FOI “Hall of Shame” highlights 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!

Join our alert's group on: WhatsApp: +2348033592762 Twitter: @ITREALMS You have story to share with us: SMS +2348033592762 WhatsApp: +2348033592762 email: itrealms.dsa@gmail.com

Radio Nigeria in MRA’s net, inducted into FOI Hall of Shame - ITREALMS

MediaWatch@ITREALMS:

The Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN) also known as ‘Radio Nigeria’ has been caught in the net of Media Rights Agenda (MRA) which has inducted the station into the Freedom of Information (FOI) “Hall of Shame”, reports ITREALMS.

Confirming this, Ms Morisola Alaba, a Legal Officer at MRA, said the institution’s sundry violations of the provisions of the FOI Act also amounted to a breach of its primary mandate to make news and information available to the public.

“It is always disheartening when a public institution established and funded primarily to facilitate the free flow of information within the society, particularly between the government and citizens, is found to be inhibiting or constraining access to information by citizens, especially when it does so in clear violation of the express provisions of the Law. We are gravely disappointed that the FRCN, which ought to leverage every available legal and institutional framework to fulfil its mandate of making news and information more freely available to the public, is so blatantly flouting the provisions of a piece of legislation enacted for precisely the same purpose,” she said.

The FRCN was established by the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria Act Cap. F18 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria to provide radio broadcasting services for general reception within Nigeria and also to provide external services for reception in countries outside Nigeria.

The corporation is Nigeria's publicly funded national radio broadcasting organization with a subsidiary domestic radio network known as Radio Nigeria having FM stations across the 36 states of the country as well as zonal stations in the six geo-political zones. It has the responsibility of planning, regulating and coordinating the activities of all the stations and the entire federal radio broadcasting system in the country.

Noting that the FRCN had apparently decided to operate in secrecy, Ms Alaba said since the enactment of the FOI Act in 2011, the institution had submitted only one out of the seven annual reports that it ought to have submitted to the Attorney-General of the Federation on its implementation of the Act as at February 1, 2018, as provided by Section 29(1) of the Act.

She contended that besides being a breach of the provisions of the Act in itself, the corporation’s failure to submit its annual report to the Attorney General of the Federation for the other six years had made it virtually impossible to determine the number of applications for access to information that it has received for each year and in total as well as the number of such applications that it processed and granted since these details ought to have been provided in the annual reports.

According to Ms Alaba, despite the significant tasks that the FRCN is saddled with, the corporation has failed to fulfil its proactive publications obligations as there is no record or information on its website or on any other publicly accessible platform about its activities, operations and businesses, which it is required by section 2(1) of the Act to disclose to the public.

She stated that out of the 16 categories of information that the FRCN is obliged to proactively publish as mandated by the Act, the corporation has only complied with respect to one of them, which is the designation of an FOI Desk Officer, as required by section 2(3) (f) of the FOI Act.

Ms Alaba noted that the corporation has not proactively disclosed the names, salaries, titles and dates of employment of all its employees, as required by section 2 (3) (d) (vi) of the Act; nor has it disclosed information on documents containing final planning policies and decisions; as well as information relating to the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds of the institution, thereby violating section 2 (3) (iii) and (v) of the Act, among others.

Although she commended the FRCN for designating an FOI Desk Officer, she said its failure to fulfil its other proactive publications obligations was putting the effective implementation of the FOI Act in jeopardy because the proactive disclosure of most of the information listed in the Act helps to facilitate the exercise of the right of access to information for the public because, among other benefits, it enables members of the public seeking information to know what information each public institution holds and, therefore, which institution they should approach for any specific information that they are interested in.

Ms Alaba said there was also no indication that the corporation has provided appropriate training for its officials on the public’s right of access to information held by it as well as on the effective implementation of the Act, as required by Section 13 of the Act.

Launched in July 2017, the FOI “Hall of Shame” highlights 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!

PTDF joins FOI Hall of Shame - ITREALMS

ITREALMS:

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has named the Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF) its 65th inductee into the “Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame”, saying it was extremely concerned about the pervasive culture of non-compliance with the FOI Act across government institutions with no single one of them having ever been sanctioned for violating the Law, reports ITREALMS.

MRA’s FOI Programme Manager, Mr. Ridwan Sulaimon, said they were gravely concerned that in an administration that came to power riding on the promise of change, with a pledge to institute transparency and accountability in governance and fight corruption, there is no single instance where the government has taken measures to sanction public institutions under its direct control which are violating the FOI Act and thereby advancing the culture of secrecy in government which enables corruption to thrive.

According to him, “By its failure to rigorously implement the FOI Act and sanction public institutions and officials that wilfully violate the Law, the Federal Government is sending a signal to all government institutions and officials that it will condone their transgressions. The Government is thereby wittingly or unwittingly encouraging public institutions to break the law with an assurance of impunity.”

Mr. Sulaimon noted that “the PTDF is the fifth public institution in the oil and gas sector to be inducted into the FOI Hall of Shame in just over one year, which is clear evidence of a systematic and institutionalised culture of secrecy that envelopes the mainstay of the Nigerian economy, fuelled by a widespread conspiracy to frustrate any effort to make the sector transparent and accountable to the public.”

According to him, public institutions in the sector that have previously been inducted into the FOI Hall of Shame are the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), which was inducted in July 2017; the Petroleum Equalisation Fund (PEF), inducted in March 2018; the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, inducted in June 2018; and the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), which was inducted in August 2018.

He stressed that “This situation strongly suggests that there is a sector-wide resistance to transparency and accountability, which should be a matter of concern to all Nigerians, given that our economic fortunes are largely dependent on the same sector.”

Mr. Sulaimon said: “We continue to be confounded by this incredible reality that despite all the revelations about the violation of the FOI Act and other laws by these institutions, the routine disregard for other rules and regulations by the institutions and the level of corruption plaguing the sector, which has impoverished the country and its citizens, the government appears totally helpless to intervene as no single official has been held accountable.”

Explaining the basis of PTDF’s induction, he said the institution was assessed based on at least five of the key obligations of public institutions under the FOI Act and the Attorney-General’s Guidelines on the Implementation of the FOI Act, noting that, just like its sister institutions earlier inducted into the FOI Hall of Shame, the PTDF failed woefully in all the indices.

Mr. Sulaimon said the PTDF was assessed on the level of compliance with its obligations to provide information to members of the public on request, submit annual implementation reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation, proactively publish defined sets of information, train its staff and officials on the public’s right of access to information as well as to designate and publish the contact details of its FOI Desk Officer.

On the obligation to provide information on request, he noted that “Important statistical data and information to assess the level of compliance with this duty are unavailable as a result of the failure of the PTDF to submit its annual implementation reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation. We are, therefore, unable to determine the number of applications for information that the PTDF has received and number of such applications that it processed. We also do not know how many requests for information it has granted or denied over the years.”

But Mr. Sulaimon said: “While there is no indication that the PTDF has ever granted any request for information, we are aware that the institution has been sued by the Abuja-based non-governmental organization, the Public and Private Development Centre, for failing to provide the organization the information that it requested.”

He observed that between 2011, when the FOI Act was enacted, and February 1, 2018, the PTDF ought to have submitted seven annual reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation on its implementation of the Act, but the institution has not submitted any report during this period, in breach of Section 29 of the Act.

Mr. Sulaimon also accused the PTDF of failing to fulfil its proactive disclosure obligations under Section 2 of the Act as it has not published either on any its website, or anywhere else, the 16 categories of information that it is required by the Act to publish and disseminate widely to members of the public through various means, including print, electronic and online.

According to him, although Section 13 of the FOI Act requires every government or public institution to ensure the provision of appropriate training for its officials on the public’s right of access to information and records held by the institution for the effective implementation of the Act, the PTDF has also failed to comply with this provision.

On the PTDF’s obligation to designate an FOI Desk Officer, Mr. Sulaimon said the Database of FOI Desk Officers available at the Federal Ministry of Justice, which is the oversight institution for the implementation of the FOI Act, indicates that the PTDF has not designated any official to whom requests for information should be made and has not published the name of any such official as required by Section 2(3)(f) of the Act.

He called on the Media, civil society organizations and other stakeholders to focus attention on the PTDF and its activities, noting that such complete opacity in an institution which has been given enormous resources and the responsibility for training and educating Nigerians to become professionals and experts in the petroleum industry calls for scrutiny.

Ayo Midele/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

Nigerian Stock Exchange joins ‘FOI Hall of Shame’ says MRA - ITREALMS

ITREALMS:

Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has accused the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) of showing complete nonchalance towards the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, 2011, consequently inducted NSE into “FOI Hall of Shame” reports ITREALMS.

Ms Chioma Nwaodike, MRA’s Legal Officer, announced the institution as this week’s inductee into the Hall of Shame, noting that the NSE has defaulted in complying with its duties and responsibilities under the FOI Act and by this action challenged the essence of the Act.

The NSE was established in 1960, originally as the Lagos Stock Exchange, and subsequently renamed the Nigerian Stock Exchange in 1977.  The NSE is licensed under the Investments and Securities Act (ISA) and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and serves as the most significant source for companies to raise funds and business capital.

Ms Nwaodike said: “Given its mission, the NSE should operate and project itself in a manner that will uphold integrity, transparency and protect the investors, thereby creating confidence in the institution. One way of doing this effectively is to observe all the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, which will enable it to be transparent and project an image of integrity.”

According to her, although the NSE has on its website names of members of its corporate governance team, detailed summaries of securities traded each week, notice to dealing members, company-specific financials, corporate actions and some market information, it has, however, failed to comply with its other obligations under section 2 of the FOI Act, which mandates it to proactively disclose certain categories of information and update them regularly.

Ms Nwaodike observed that there is no reference to or mention of the FOI Act on the NSE’s website as the institution has treated the Law with complete disdain based, perhaps, on its initial mistaken belief that the Law was not applicable to it.

The NSE expressed the view that it is not subject to the FOI Act when Dr. Owei Ayibatonye and his four children, who had lost substantial amounts of money following an investment in an unregistered investment product, referred to as the Partnership Securities Deposit Account (PSDA) promoted by the Partnership Investment Company Limited (PICO) and Partnership Securities Limited, applied to the NSE pursuant to the FOI Act, for information and documents, relating to the Partnership Entity.

In refusing to disclose the information, the NSE claimed that it is not subject to the FOI Act and therefore not under any obligation to honour their request for information.

In the ensuing litigation at the Federal High Court in Lagos, the Court noted that the NSE exists to serve the interest of the public, which is a public function, as it was established to carry out its activities in the interest of investors and the public. Justice Ayokunle Faji accordingly ruled that “on a literal interpretation of Section 2(7) Freedom of information Act therefore, it seems to me and I hold that the Defendant (NSE) is a public institution and therefore subject to the Freedom of Information Act.”

Ms Nwaodike noted that even in the aftermath of the Court’s decision, the NSE has not taken steps to bring itself into compliance with the FOI Act and has continued to insist that the Act does not apply to it.

She observed that in the last seven years since the commencement of the FOI Act, the NSE has failed to submit its annual reports on its implementation of the Act to the Attorney-General of the Federation as directed by section 29 of Act, adding that “its failure to comply with this mandatory requirement obviously amounts to a violation of the Law.”

Ms Nwaodike said in addition to this dereliction, the NSE was also guilty of non-compliance with Section 2(3)(f) of the Act as it has failed to designate as well as publish the title and address of an appropriate official of the institution to whom applications for information under the Act should be sent by members of the public.

According to her, there is little doubt that the failure to designate such an official and publish his or her contact details has had negative implications for the rights of members of the public to access to information from the NSE as those interested in obtaining information from it would obviously not know where to direct their requests for information.

Nenye Dom/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

‘FOI Hall of Shame’ goes to Bank of Industry - ITREALMS

ITREALMS:

Obvious focus on the banking industry, the Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has inducted the Bank ofIndustry (BoI) into its Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame over the institution’s preference for shrouding its operations in secrecy while completely disregarding its duties and obligations under the FOI Act, 2011, reports ITRealms.

MRA’s Programme Officer, Mr. Idowu Adewale, told ITRealms in a press statement made available, that the Bank had deliberately refused, neglected or failed to comply with any of its obligations under the FOI Act over the last seven years thereby shielding itself from public scrutiny and depriving Nigerians of their right to access information about its activities, businesses and operations.

The Bank, which describes itself as Nigeria’s oldest and largest development financing institution, was restructured in 2001 out of the Nigerian Industrial Development Bank (NIDB) Limited. Its primary mandate is to provide long term financing to the industrial sector of the Nigerian economy.

“The Bank of Industry is strategically placed and its management has the golden opportunity to stimulate industrial development in Nigeria.  One of the ways it can effectively do this is by building public trust and confidence in the institution if it chooses to be transparent and accountable.  But it has instead chosen to cast doubts and suspicion over its activities by refusing to comply with its obligations under the FOI Act,” he said.

According to Adewale, “The Bank has refused to publish and disseminate important categories of information, documents and records that Section 2(3) and (4) of the Act specifically requires it to publish and disseminate widely in various forms. These include a list of all classes of records under its control in sufficient detail to facilitate the exercise of the right to information under the Act; documents containing final planning policies, recommendations and decisions; documents containing information relating to the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds of the institution; and documents containing the names, salaries, titles and dates of employment of all employees and officers of the institution.”

He noted that the Bank has also failed to publish and disseminate its lists of files containing applications for any contract, permit, grants, licenses or agreement; lists of materials containing information relating to any grant or contract made by or between the institution and another public institution or private organization.

Describing the Bank’s refusal to publish these categories of information as a blatant disobedience of Section 2 (3) and (4) of the FOI Act, Mr. Adewale said: “These categories of information, if published by the Bank, will make it possible for entrepreneurs and industrialists to get a full understanding of the operations of the Bank in such a manner that they will know what to do to access funds from it and help turn the country into an industrialized and technologically developed nation.”

He said the Bank had neither designated an FOI Desk Officer nor disseminated the title and address of such an officer of the institution to whom applications for information under the Act should be sent, adding that “This is obvious from the fact that the information is neither available on its website nor in the database of contact details of the FOI Desk Officers in public institutions compiled by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation.  This failure breaches Section 2(3)(f) of the FOI Act.”

He also accused the Bank of “a clear defiance” of Section 29 (1) and (2) of the FOI Act and the provisions of the Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the FOI Act issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation, saying that “for seven consecutive years since the coming into force of the FOI Act, BoI has consistently defaulted in submitting to the Attorney-General of the Federation any report on its implementation of the Act while also failing to make any such report available to the public.”

Mr. Adewale said based on the fact that the Bank has consistently breached all its other duties and obligations under the FOI Act, it is unlikely that it has responded to any FOI request that may have been made to it by members of the public, adding that the institution’s failure to submit its FOI implementation reports has made it difficult to accurately assess its level of responsiveness to requests for information made to it by members of the public under the Act.

He explained that all public institutions are required to indicate in their annual FOI implementation reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation, the number of requests for information that they received during the year under review, the number of such requests that they processed and granted or denied, and how long it takes them to process requests for information, among other details that they are expected to provide.

“From the shortcomings of the BoI in the implementation of the FOI Act as highlighted, it is doubtful if it even records and keeps information about its activities, personnel, operations, businesses and other relevant information, as required by the Act,” he said, advising the Bank that it still “has the opportunity to make amends and write its name in gold in the Hall of Fame.”

However, he called on relevant oversight agencies to rise up to their duty of ensuring the implementation and enforcement of the FOI Act and ensure that BoI, as well as all other institutions covered by the Act, comply with their obligations under the Law.

Launched on July 3, 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. 

Ayo Midele/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

ARCN bags FOI Hall of Shame - ITREALMS

ITREALMS:

Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has named the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN) as this week’s inductee into the “Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame” for consistently violating the provisions of the FOI Act over the past seven years, thereby denying Nigerians the right to information in the agricultural development sector, reports ITRealms.

The ARCN was established by the Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria Act of 1999 with its functions including preparing annual budgets for agricultural research, training and extension programmes of the institutes under its aegis and receiving grants for allocation to agricultural institutes for the implementation of their annual programmes as well as to universities and other bodies for special research or training projects.

Announcing the induction of the ARCN into the FOI Hall of Shame in a statement in Lagos, MRA’s Programme Officer, Mr. Idowu Adewale, highlighted several failings of the public institution regarding the implementation of the FOI Act which led to its censure by MRA.

He noted that although the ARCN has an active website, it has not taken advantage of this to fulfill its proactive disclosure obligations by publishing on the website the categories of information listed for proactive disclosure under Section 2(3) of the FOI Act.

According to Mr. Adewale, there is no information on ARCN’s website regarding the fund allocations for agricultural research purposes; the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds of the institution; the names, salaries, titles, and dates of employment of employees and officers of the institution; the list of files containing applications for contracts, permits, grants, licenses or agreements, among several other categories of  information, records and documents listed in Section 2 (3) of the FOI Act that must be proactively published by every public institution.

He criticized the ARCN for its lack of responsiveness to requests for information from members of the public, citing in particular, its refusal to respond to an application for information dated August 2, 2016, submitted to it by Public and Private Development Centre (PPDC), a non-governmental organization based in Abuja, for a list of the contracts awarded by the ARCN in 2015 and its procurement plan for 2016.

Nenye Dom/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

NESREA joins FOI Hall of Shame - ITREALMS Online

ITREALMS:

Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has inducted the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) into its “Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame” reports ITRealms.

NESREA was accused of undermining its own effectiveness by disregarding the FOI Act and possibly endangering the lives of Nigerians by its secrecy, reports ITRealms.

In a statement in Lagos, Mr. Ayode Longe, Programme Director at Media Rights Agenda (MRA), said the agency, which has among its duties, the creation of public awareness and provision of environmental education on sustainable environmental management, the promotion of private sector compliance with environmental regulations other than in the oil and gas sector, and the publication of general scientific or other data resulting from the performance of its functions, has failed Nigerians in its core functions as well as in the implementation of a critically important piece of legislation aimed at promoting transparency, accountability and public participation in the important sector that it oversees.

He said: “There is no information available anywhere about any research, monitoring and enforcement of compliance by NESREA with any environmental regulation or laws while there is very little information available on its website or elsewhere about its activities, operations and businesses.  We fail to see how this cloak of secrecy under which it operates, in breach of the express provisions of the Law, is in the interest of NESREA or helps it to advance its goals.”

Established by the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency Act of 2007, NESREA has responsibility for the protection and development of the environment, biodiversity conservation and sustainable development of Nigeria’s natural resources in general as well as environmental technology, including coordinating and liaising with relevant stakeholders within and outside Nigeria on matters of enforcement of environmental standards, regulations, rules, laws, policies and guidelines.

According to Mr. Longe, although the agency says its operational strategy is to establish a robust environmental information management system, including a database and databank, it has failed to disclose the categories of information that the FOI Act requires it to publish proactively, including information about its businesses, activities and operations.

He noted that the agency has failed to proactively publish the lists of reports, documents, studies or publications prepared by independent contractors for the agency as well as files containing applications for contracts, permits, grants, licenses or agreements, which it is obliged to do under the FOI Act.  

Besides, Mr Longe said, although the agency has a long list of accredited consultants whose certificates are ostensibly up to date as at July 2018, there is no information about the names, salaries, titles, and dates of employment of employees and officers of the agency as required by section 2(d) (vi) of the FOI Act.

He accused the agency of failing to disclose reports and details of organizations or individuals that are violating environmental laws or regulations,standards, rules, policies and guidelines, thereby creating a lack of public awareness on the issue, contrary to its mandate, and possibly endangering the lives of Nigerians as a result.

Mr. Longe said since the FOI Act was passed into Law and came into force in 2011, NESREA had not submitted any annual report to the Attorney-General of the Federation on its implementation of the Act, as required by section 29 (1) of the Law.  He noted that as at February 1 of this year, NESREA ought to have submitted a total of seven such reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation.

In addition, he said that there was no indication on the agency’s website or anywhere else that it has designated an appropriate officer to whom applications for information should be sent.

Section 2(3) (f) of the FOI Act requires every public institution to proactively publish the title and address of the appropriate officer of the institution to whom an application for information under the Act should be sent, but provides that the failure of any public institution to publish any such information shall not prejudicially affect the public’s right of access to information in the custody of such public institution.

Mr. Longe accused NESREA of also violating Section 2(3) (f) of the Act, adding that even the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, the oversight body for the implementation of the FOI Act, which maintains a database of such FOI Desk Officers of public institutions, has no record of compliance by the agency.

According to him, the institution is also in breach of section 2 (3) (d) (i) and (e) (iii) of the Act as it has consistently failed to proactively disclose any information relating to the receipt and expenditure of public or other funds as well as information containing applications for any contracts made by it or between it and other public institutions or private organizations.

Mr. Longe noted that the institution had apparently also not trained its officials on the public’s right of access to information or records held by it and for the effective implementation of the FOI Act, as required by Section 13 of the Act.

He said: “Media Rights Agenda calls on the Buhari Administration not to condone this sort of potentially pernicious disregard of our laws by public institutions. Heads of public institutions such as NESREA who do not appear to have an appreciation of the importance or seriousness of the offices they hold have no business holding public office.”

According to Mr. Longe, “The Government must move away from what appears to be a public policy of condoning the violation of our laws by the same public institutions that should be in the forefront of championing compliance with the Law, especially when they have regulatory functions and require other public and private bodies to obey the Law and report to them. If the regulatory bodies are themselves in breach of the Law, they rob themselves of the moral or legal authority to insist on compliance by other entities over which they superintend.”

Launched by MRA in July 2017, the “FOI Hall of Shame” highlights public officials and institutions that are undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act through their actions, inactions, utterances, and decisions.

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

MRA charges NASS on effective FOI implementation, marks 1-year of ‘FOI Hall of Shame’ - ITREALMS Online

ITREALMS:

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has called on the National Assembly to institute measures to enforce compliance with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act in its capacity as the ultimate oversight body in the implementation of the Law, as the organization marked the first year anniversary of the launch of the “FOI Hall of Shame” reports ITRealms.

In a statement issued in Lagos in commemoration of the first anniversary of the Hall of Shame launched by MRA on July 3, 2017, MRA Executive Director, Mr. Edetaen Ojo, said they believe that the National Assembly has a crucial role to play in ensuring the effective implementation of the FOI Act.

“The National Assembly itself apparently recognized this role, which was why in making the Law, it included Section 29 (7) and (8), requiring the Attorney-General of the Federation to report to the National Assembly annually details regarding the implementation of the Act during the preceding year.”

According to him, “We consider these provisions to be consistent with international best practice in the implementation of FOI Laws as they can give the National Assembly a good picture of the status of compliance by the relevant public institutions with the FOI Act and enable it to determine whether additional measures are required to improve the implementation of the Law.”

Section 29(7) of the Act provides that “The Attorney-General shall submit to the National Assembly an annual report on or before April 1 of each calendar year which shall include for the prior calendar year a listing of the number of cases arising under this Act, the exemption involved in each case, the disposition of such cases, and the cost, fees, and penalties assessed” while Section 29(8) stipulates that "Such report shall also include detailed description of the efforts taken by the Ministry of Justice to encourage all government or public institutions to comply with this Act.”

Mr. Ojo noted that “Although the two Attorneys-General of the Federation who have held the position since the FOI Act was enacted in 2011 have religiously submitted their annual reports to the National Assembly without fail, members of the National Assembly have not acted on any of these reports over the last seven years and there is no indication that the reports are even being read by them.”

He explained that widespread violation of the Act led to the initiation of 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, noting that 49 inductees have so far been named into the Hall of Shame from all the three arms of government, namely the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive.

Mr. Ojo said “most of the  inductees bagged the ‘FOI Hall of Shame’ Award owing to their obvious disregard for their duties and obligations under the FOI Act, including their failure to submit their annual FOI implementation reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation on or before  February 1 of each year, and failing to publish such reports proactively either on their websites or anywhere else; their failure to respond to requests for information made by members of the public; their failure to train their officials on the public’s right of access to information and equipping them with relevant skills to ensure the effective implementation of the Act; as well as their failure to designate appropriate officers and to publish the titles and addresses of such officer to whom applications for information by members of the public can be sent.”

He expressed concern that even one year after the launch of the Hall of Shame, the 2017 Annual Report on the Implementation of the FOI Act, submitted to the National Assembly on March 27, 2018 by the Attorney-General of the Federation still indicated that 90 per cent of public institutions are not complying with their reporting obligations.

Mr. Ojo called on the Attorney-General of the Federation to explore administrative sanctions to ensure that public institutions to which the FOI Act applies take their duties and obligations under the Act seriously and respect the rights of Nigerians to information, which is also a fundamental right of citizens of all countries as established under international law.

By so doing, he said, the Attorney-General of the Federation will be giving effect to the provisions of Section 29(6) of the FOI Act which stipulates that “the Attorney General shall in his oversight responsibility under this Act ensure that all institutions to which this Act applies comply with the provisions of the Act.”

Mr. Ojo urged the Attorney-General of the Federation to solicit the assistance of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation and the National Assembly in applying appropriate pressure on all public institutions to fully implement the Act.

Nenye Dom/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

Pix: Saraki, Senate President

Commission for Mass literacy joins ‘FOI Hall of Shame’ - ITREALMS Online

ITREALMS:

The National Commission for Mass Literacy, Adult andNon-Formal Education (NMEC) has joined dozens of other public institutions in the “Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame” as Media Rights Agenda (MRA)accused it of failing to comply with virtually all its duties and obligations under the FOI Act, reports ITRealms.

Disclosing the induction of NMEC into the FOI Hall of Shame in Lagos on Monday, MRA’s Programme Manager for Freedom of Information, Mr Ridwan Sulaimon, in a press statement made available to ITRealms, said the attitude of the Commission towards the FOI Act was illogical for an institution whose primary mandate is “the eradication of illiteracy for national development” and whose activities and spheres of operation cut across the entire social strata.

“It should be obvious to the management of NMEC that the institution cannot hope to succeed in its task of combating the problems of illiteracy and ignorance within its client population if it does not support and implement a framework such as the FOI Act, which is designed to enhance the free flow of information and to make information freely available to citizens,” he said

NMEC is a statutory Federal Government parastatal charged with the ‘responsibility of making literate all those who for one reason or the other did not or cannot benefit from the formal school system. These include out-of-school youths, children in the street, women in purdah, victims of teenage motherhood (VVF), Nomadic illiterate people, Almajiris and other migrant fishing folks.’

Noting that since its establishment in 1990, NMEC has received funding from different sources including from the federation budget and local governments, Mr. Sulaimon contended that the institution has a burden of accountability which will be easily discharged if it implements its commitments under the FOI Act.

According to him, “Unfortunately, in the last seven years since the enactment of the FOI Act, NMEC has not submitted any annual implementation report to the Attorney General of the Federation, as it is required to do by Section 29 of the Act; and there is no indication whatsoever that the organisation has designated an officer to whom requests for information may be sent, as required by the FOI Act and the Implementation Guidelines for the Act issued by the Attorney-General.”

He noted that as a direct result of the institution’s failure to submit its annual implementation reports for the past seven years and to make such reports public in utter disregard for the Law, there is no information available anywhere about the institution’s handling of its obligations under the FOI Act, especially its level of responsiveness to requests for information from members of the public.”

Ayo Midele/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

Onu’s Science and Tech Ministry joins ‘FOI Hall of Shame’

ITREALMS:

The Federal Ministry of Science and Technology under the leadership of Dr. Christopher Ogbonnaya Onu has been inducted into the ‘FOI Hall of Shame’ by Media Rights Agenda (MRA) for alleged blatant disregard of the Act Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, 2011 in the past seven years, reports ITRealms.

MRA’s Legal Officer, Ms Morisola Alaba, announced the induction in a statement in Lagos, saying “In the last seven years since the enactment of the FOI Act, the ministry has not submitted a single annual report on its implementation of the Law, thus violating section 29 of the Act and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the FOI Act, issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation pursuant to his powers under the Act.”

She noted that the ministry whose vision is to make Nigeria one of the acknowledged leaders of the scientifically and technologically developed nations of the world deliberately disregards the FOI Act which is aimed at enabling citizens to be aware of the operations, businesses and activities of Government, including all public institutions, in order to make informed decisions in all aspects of their lives.

Although the ministry has published on its website a description of the organisation and its responsibilities, including details of the programmes and functions of each of its departments, it nonetheless failed to publish a list of description of documents containing final opinion including concurring and dissenting opinions.

Ms Alaba added that “there is also no indication whatsoever that the ministry has provided the appropriate training for its officials on the public’s right of access to information or records held by the ministry or trained them to effectively implement the Act, as it is required to do by section 13 of the FOI Act.”

She further said that the ministry, whose mandate includes acquisition and application of science, technology and innovation contribution to increase agricultural and livestock production; creation of technology infrastructure and knowledge base to facilitate its wide application for development; and application of natural medicine resources and technologies for health sector development, among others has failed to acknowledge the FOI Act in order to make information relevant to its mandate readily available.

According to Ms Alaba, the ministry failed to proactively disclose list of files containing applications for any contract, permit, grant, licenses or agreement, reports, documents, studies, or publications prepared by independent contractors for institution; and materials containing information relating to any grant or contract made by or between the institution and another public institution or private organisation, as required by section 2 (3) (e) of the FOI Act.

She stated that although the ministry has names and profiles of its management staff on its website, it failed to disclose the names, salaries, titles and dates of employment of all employees of the institution, as required by section 2 (3) (d) (vi) of the Act.

Ms Alaba said the ministry also failed to disclose information on documents containing final planning policies, recommendations, and decisions as well as information relating to the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds of the institution in violation of section 2 (3) (iii) and  (v) of the FOI Act.

She added: “Although we cannot determine at this point the scale of non-responsiveness by the Ministry to requests for information from members of the public owing to its failure to submit annual reports for 2011 to 2017, which would have provided that vital information, we know for a fact that it has failed to respond to FOI requests from civil society organizations such as the Public and Private Development Centre (PPDC) and Paradigm Initiative.  Instead of providing the information in accordance with the Law, it has opted to waste public funds defending the refusal to disclose the requested information in court.”

Ms Alaba  said there was no indication on the ministry’s website or anywhere else that it has designated an appropriate officer to whom applications for information should be sent, and accused the ministry of also violating Section 2(3)(f) of the Act, adding that even the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, the oversight body for the implementation of the FOI Act, which maintains a database of such FOI Desk Officers of public institutions, has no record of compliance by the ministry.

Launched by MRA in July 2017, the “FOI Hall of Shame” highlights public officials and institutions that are undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act through their actions, inactions, utterances, and decisions.

Uj. N. Dominic/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

Why MRA inducted Nigerian Prisons Service into ‘FOI Hall of Shame’

ITREALMS:

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has inducted the Nigerian Prisons Service (NPS) into its Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame for its lack of transparency about its operations and activities, evidenced by its blatant disregard of the FOI Act.

In a statement in Lagos, MRA’s Director of Programmes, Mr. Ayode Longe, noted that “since the coming into force of the FOI Act in 2011, the Nigerian Prisons Service has not submitted a single annual report on its implementation of the Act, as required by section 29 of the Act as well as the Guidelines for the Implementation of the FOI Act, issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation pursuant to his powers under the Act.”

According to him, there is no information available anywhere on the institution’s handling of requests for information made to it by members of the public, pursuant to the FOI Act, making it is difficult to determine the extent of the Nigerian Prisons Service’s responsiveness to requests for information made to it by members of the public.

Mr. Longe said: “By February 1, this year, the Nigerian Prisons Service should have submitted a total of seven annual reports to the Attorney-General of the Federation on its implementation of the FOI Act. But records obtained from the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation show that it has not submitted a single report during this period, a clear violation of its statutory obligations under the Act. As a direct result of the institution’s failure to submit its annual reports, we cannot ascertain the number of applications for information that it received and the number that it has processed or granted in the last seven years.”

He accused the Nigerian Prisons Service of failing to list the classes of records under its control in sufficient detail to facilitate the exercise of the right to information under the Act as well as the manuals used by its employees in administering or carrying out any of the programmes or activities of the institution as part of its proactive publications obligations under Section 2(3)(b) of the Act.

Mr. Longe observed that the institution has also not proactively disclosed documents in its custody, containing factual reports, inspection reports, and studies whether prepared by or for the institution as well as a description of documents containing final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as required by section 2 of the Act.

In addition, he said, the Nigerian Prisons Service, has failed to proactively disclose any information regarding the names, salaries, titles and dates of employment of all employees and officers of the institution, thereby violating section 2(3) (d)(vi) of the FOI Act.

According to him, the Nigerian Prisons Service also contravened section 2 (3) (d)(i) and (e)(iii) of the Act as it failed to proactively disclose any information relating to the receipt and expenditure of public or other funds of the institution as well as information containing applications for any contracts made by it or between it and another public institution or private organization.

Mr. Longe criticised the Nigerian Prisons Service for not providing appropriate training for its officials to enhance their implementation of the Act and their appreciation of the public’s right of access to information in their custody, thereby violating section 13 of the Act.

He said there was no indication on the institution’s website or anywhere else showing that it has designated an appropriate officer to whom applications for information should be sent, indicating that the Nigerian Prisons Service is also in violation of Section 2(3)(f) of the Act, adding that even the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, the oversight body for the implementation of the FOI Act, which maintains a database of such FOI Desk Officers of public institutions, has no record of compliance by the institution.

Launched by MRA in July 2017, the “FOI Hall of Shame” highlights public officials and institutions that are undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act through their actions, inactions, utterances, and decisions.

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!