23/08/2017
RE: APPLICABILITY OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: MY ANSWER TO THE SPEAKER OF THE CROSS RIVER HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY BY FIRST BABA ISA.
First Baba Isa, while commending you for shedding more light on the Freedom of Information Act, I wish to state that your submission does not substantially differ from the Speaker’s position. The slight difference is in your dexterous deployment of verbose vocabulary.
“…Be that as it may, Section 28 of the FOIA deals squarely with this. It says: “(1) The fact that any information in the custody of a public institution is kept by that institution under security classification or is classified document within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act does not preclude it from being disclosed pursuant to an application for disclosure thereof under the provisions of this Act, but in every case the public institution to which the application is made shall decide whether such information is of a type referred to in Sections 11,12,14,15,16,17,19,20 or 21 of this Act. (2) If the public institution to which the application in subsection (1) is made decides that such information is not a type mentioned in the sections referred to in subsection (1), access to such information shall be given to the applicant. (3) If the public institution, to which the application mentioned in subsection (1) is made, decides that such information is of a type mentioned in sections referred to in subsection (1), it shall give notice to the applicant.
“The worst case scenario deducible from section 28 of the FOIA, supra, is that a public institution can write back to an applicant explaining why the said information cannot be released, then the matter will become a question for the courts to decide”.
The above statements were culled from your response and it shows clearly that the FOIA does not expressly guarantee freedom of information especially the fact that the Act recognizes the Official Secret Act and still gives it room to thrive via sections 11, 12, 14, 15,17,19,20 and 21 of the FOIA.
With these sections highlighted above, can one say that there is unrestricted access to information?
Does the fact that the FOIA acknowledges that the OSA under specific circumstances should deny an individual certain information if found contrary to sections 11,12,14,15,17,19,20 or 21 not a denial of freedom to know? Does this not obstruct the freedom of information as it were?
To the extent that an applicant will have to go to court in order to enforce release of public information or access information is itself a ‘clog in the wheels’ and thus a kerb on the FOIA. The court should not be approached to enforce access to information but to try defaulting institutions if the Official Secret Act was repealed.
Succinctly, there is freedom of information Act in theory but what we have in practice is ‘freedom of some information Act’ and the subsisting Official Secret Act explains why?
This is the base of the Speaker’s postulation and what he tried to infer with the statements credited to him on the FOIA at the last Agba Jalingo's Quarterly Town Hall Meeting which held on the 14th of August, 2017 in Calabar.
Azogor Ideba
CPS to Hon Speaker, CRSHA