NIGERIA'S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. The FOI was passed into law on May 28 2011, after the longest legislative debate in Nigerian history. The law was passed to enable the public to access certain government information, in order to ensure transparency and accountability. The bill was developed by the Freedom of Information Coalition. (1) The act aims to make public records and information more freely available, and to protect public records and information in accordance with the public interest and protection of personal privacy. It enables citizens to hold the government accountable in the event of the misappropriation of public funds or failure to deliver public services. It also seeks to protect serving public officers against any adverse consequences from the unauthorised disclosure of certain kinds of official information, and to establish procedures for the achievement of these purposes. The act further regulates conflicts between its provisions and those of other legislation (eg, the Criminal Code, Penal Code or Official Secret Act) that prescribes criminal penalties for actions connected to the disclosure of information. Section 27 of the law provides that no civil or criminal proceedings may be brought against an officer of any public institution, or against anyone acting on behalf of a public institution, for the disclosure in good faith of any information pursuant to the act. Section 30(1) further provides that the act is intended to complement, not replace, the existing procedures for access to public records, and is not intended to limit public access to information. In any economy, freedom of information is a fundamental indicator of economic development and progress, civic engagement and a properly functioning democracy. Although the act is a promising start in ensuring good governance and rule of law in Nigeria, several hurdles will need to be overcome before it can be fully implemented. The act recognises a range of legitimate exemptions and limitations to the public's right to know, although these are subject to a public interest test which, in deserving cases, may override such exemptions and limitations. Exemptions As mentioned, the public's right to know is subject to certain exemptions. Access may be denied if the information sought could compromise national security, the conduct of international affairs or trade secrets, pertains to administrative enforcement proceedings or has been compiled by a law enforcement agency, provided that the public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the injury that the disclosure may cause.(2) Section 14 of the act provides that public institutions may not disclose personal information, except where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the individual's right to privacy. However, such disclosure is subject to the consent of the individual, or may otherwise be effected only where the information is publicly available.(3) In addition, access may be denied to information that is subject to legal privilege, medical privilege, journalistic privilege and any other professional privilege conferred by law.(4) Also, a public institution may deny access to information or research materials prepared by faculty members.(5) These exemptions grant broad discretion to public institutions to deny information, and as such may be subject to abuse. However, this risk is somewhat mitigated by the provision for judicial review and the requirement that an application for information not be denied where the public interest in disclosure outweighs any injury that such disclosure may cause. Public interest disclosure As a means of overriding the exemption provisions and preserving access to information, the act includes a public interest test, under which information cannot be withheld where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest in denying access to the information. This allows for the disclosure of information even where this is likely to cause harm to a protected interest, if the overall public benefits of disclosure outweigh any potential harm that might result. However, the determination of what constitutes 'public interest' will present a challenge, except in obvious cases, and will ultimately be determined by the courts. The courts will have to balance these exemptions against the public's right to know. The act does not define the term 'public interest'. In determining this issue, the courts are likely to rely on English case law, which is of persuasive authority in Nigeria. An applicant who has been denied information may apply to court for judicial review within 30 days of the denial or deemed denial.(6) The court also has the power to extend this timeframe. All applications for judicial review must be heard and determined summarily. The public institution bears the burden of proving that it is authorised to deny the application for information. If the court determines that the information should have been disclosed, it will order its disclosure to the applicant. Barely weeks after passage of the act, Justice Binta Murtala Nyako of the Federal High Court in Lagos granted leave to the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) to apply for a writ of mandamus compelling the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to disclose information to the effect that the CDHR's executive director and leadership had received the sum of N52 million in order to smear the EFCC. Application to states Another question arising from the act is whether it will apply throughout Nigeria. Some argue that the various state houses of assembly must implement it before it can apply in those states; otherwise, it will apply only in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria. Whether this is legally correct will eventually be decided by the Nigerian courts. As it stands, the act is a law of the National Assembly,(7) which is empowered to make laws for the Federation of Nigeria with respect to archives and public records. The state houses of assembly may make laws for each state with respect to its own archives and public records. Opinion is thus divided as to whether the act applies to state archives and public records. The problem lies in the distinction which the 1999 Constitution makes (in Part II, Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Second Schedule) between 'public records of the Federation' and 'public records of the State.' It is also argued that under the Constitution, only a state house of assembly may make laws in respect of its public records, and thus the act does not apply to state public records. This view is reinforced by Section 29 of the act, which provides for public institutions to report to the attorney general of the federation, who in turn must report to the National Assembly. If the law were intended to apply to the states, provisions should have been included on reporting to the state attorneys general and the state houses of assembly. As it stands, only one state in Nigeria(8) has implemented the act. Until the act has been tested in the courts, it may be of limited effect until other states have passed similar legislation. Therefore, in order for the act to become effective in other parts of the country, the state houses of assembly must implement its provisions, because at present it is a federal law only and is thus applicable only to federal institutions and agencies. It is envisaged that other states are likely to follow in the same vein. Comment The freedom of information must be balanced against other equally important interests, such as the right to privacy, protection of reputation and national security. The public interest is a broad concept which is difficult to define. Its definition or interpretation may vary depending on the circumstances of each case. It is a matter for the courts, acting in good faith with the specific aims of the act in mind, to develop jurisprudential guidance as to the appropriate meaning of the public interest in specific situations. Where information is improperly denied, the act allows the court to compel the public agency or official to grant the application for access. Section 2(6) of the act provides that anyone denied access to information may apply to court to compel disclosure of the information. However, this process may prove both costly and slow, and could have been better dealt with in the act through the inclusion of a provision for the establishment of an independent administrative body to promote compliance with the act. Such a body would be more accessible and affordable than the courts, and could resolve disputes relatively quickly. The establishment of such an independent body would have proved invaluable in addressing the culture of secrecy which is often the greatest barrier to transparent disclosure. It would also have helped to expose and embarrass public authorities with poor disclosure records, or which actively seek to undermine the objectives of the legislation.(9) In spite of the merits of the act, certain challenges remain to be addressed, such as the ongoing culture of secrecy, the slow process of judicial review, the lack of political will to implement the act and the fact that public officials still retain significant discretion as to whether to disclose information under the act.

ABDUL-AZIZ NYAKO, SON OF EX GOV MURTALA NYAKO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED BY EFCC. The Economic and Financial crimes Commission (EFCC) has arrested Abdul-Aziz Nyako, son of impeached governor of Adamawa State, Murtala Nyako. EFCC said the younger Nyako was arrested in Gombe, capital of Gombe state, and was immediately flown to Abuja “where he is currently being grilled by a crack team of detectives who had been working on the Adamawa investigation for several months”. A statement issued Friday by Wilson Uwujaren, head of media and publicity of the EFCC reads in part: “Abdul-Aziz, who was declared wanted by the EFCC in the case of stealing, abuse of office and money laundering, is currently telling investigators all he knows about illicit funds traced to companies where he has interest. “Specifically, he will have to explain how over N15 billion funds belonging to Adamawa State was laundered into the accounts of five companies owned by him. Blue Opal Nigeria limited, Crust Energy Nigeria Limited, Blue Ribbon Multilinks Limited, Tower Assets Management Limited and Blue Ribbon Bureau De Change”. According to the statement, the funds were funneled into the accounts of the companies from Adamawa state accounts domiciled in a new generation bank by the account officer, who incidentally is the manager and an in-law to ex-governor Nyako. The manager claimed he transferred the funds through verbal instruction from the former governor for purposes, which are not stated”, he added. Investigations revealed that from 2007 to 2011 within Nyako’s tenure in office, before he was impeached in 2014, he had directed that all of the state-owned accounts domiciled in various banks be transferred to the new generation bank. Abdul-Aziz’s company, Blue Opal, is said to own, among other investments in Nigeria, an estate in Abuja, while his father’s account officer owns several properties and investments scattered around Abuja, Yola and Kano.

THE BORDER-LINES OF A MILITARY TAKE-OVER IN NIGERIA. One thing is certain; no one knows where this country is headed. Not the president, the media, the international community or the people on the street. But another frightening possibility that has begun to take shape in the hearts of common people on the street is that of a military take-over. One they may accept without remorse. Of course this seems least likely given the stage to which Nigeria’s development has gotten, but it’s a possibility. One cannot help but wonder while walking on the streets of Ikoyi Lagos state only a few days ago, and seeing that armored tanks had blocked the roads in anticipation for a civilian response to the postponement of elections. Or a more recent inclusion of the Nigerian military in daily activities in form of road-blocks on several main highways in the capital city of Abuja. One cannot also help but notice the complete lack of trust that Nigerians have developed for the institutions of government, and this is a dangerous scenario; all military governments that took to power in the past have followed a trend most noticeable in writer Max Sillouns ‘Soldiers of Fortune’ by capitalizing on the distrust in the government by the Nigerian people, civil unrest, protests, riots and general insecurity. One may argue that democracy has gone too far to allow for this kind of change. But no one can dispute the leadership failures that can easily be blamed on democracy. Three problems have become obvious following the change in 1999 from a military to a democratic government. In the first place a reversal of democratic gains in the form a dismantling of democratic institutions by manipulating elections, control of independent television and newspaper outlets, and clamping down on opposition activities by the different presidents that have emerged. A second problem is that although power had shifted from those in the uniforms to those in other garments, the elite structure remained the same. General Olusegun Obasanjo who emerged as a democratic president in 1999 was quick to transfer leadership to Umar Musa Yar’Adua; a younger brother to his former compatriot Shehu Musa Yar’adua showing in the most subtle form, that although many authoritarian elites were ready to welcome a democratic institution, a majority had no interest in implementing democratic institutions that would dilute their power. The third and most important is in the failure of political systems to deliver the basic services that people demand from their governments. In the case of Nigeria, what is most noticeable is that after 16 years; power cuts, unemployment, poverty and security has remained a major problem that isn’t even about to be solved. All this difficulties have slowly eroded the confidence of Nigerians in existing institutions. If Nigerians cannot march non-violently against their government on issues about their security and well-being, or demand accountability from their leaders, or demand for change and get it, then there will exist no difference in their understanding between a civilian government and a militarized country. This, the Nigerian military knows all too well. So when Africa’s most populous country and largest contributor to the AU forces cannot tackle a home bred insurgency, when for the first time since our democracy the military has begun to dictate on how and when elections will be run, and when the common man on the street can comfortably state that he would prefer a military regime to what he sees on the television, one can conveniently reach the conclusion that once again, the rules of political engagement may witness a drastic change. I cannot speak for all Nigerians; I will speak for myself and the few people I have discussed with on the issue because we all share a common perspective. If just days before the election scheduled to hold on March 28, the government throws out another illogical reason why it cannot hold elections on that date, what do you think Nigerians will do? Protest? Riot? Be ready to die to ensure that their democratic rights are safe-guarded? With the current statistics, it is more plausible to assume that many Nigerians would simply return to their lives in earnest of another government solution than take to the streets. If on the other hand armored tanks and masked soldiers moved out to block several highways and streets in Abuja, Lagos, Kaduna and Port-harcourt as had been the method in the past to force a declaration from televisions stations, radio stations, print and other media that the nation had changed hands from a democratic to a military leadership, what do you think Nigerians will do? Protest? Riot? Be ready to die to ensure that their democratic rights are safe-guarded? We all know what the answer to this will be. The man on the street is as confused as the man in suit inside an office somewhere in Abuja. He also doesn’t care much about the workings of democracy or who is in power. He doesn’t share a spirit of democratic values or Nigerian-ness, and would not lift a finger to fight in a battle that isn’t his. This attitude has been developed by years of a hopeless demand for change. This attitude can see the rise of another military regime, without any qualms. Written by Tahir Sherriff; Articulated by Media-Links!

These are very strong presidents of some African countries that ruled with Stiff and rigid laws; but were either brutalized, arrested, escaped or killed. These men were men, some were richer than their country, some were very brilliant, some were dictatorial by leadership style; but have left legacies; some of their legacies were lessons to other leaders such as Nigeria. These leaders includes Emperor Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Mobutu Sese-Seko, Field Marshal Idi Amin Dada of Uganda, Charlse McArthur Ghankay Taylor, Sekou Taure, Macias Ngume, Siad Barre, Hissene Habre, Mengitsu Haile Mariam, Kamuzu Banda, Gnassingbe eyadema, Laurent Gbabo etc. Reflecting back into how these men leads their countries, but end-up in various calamities; ours should have learnt lesson had it been he is well equiped with the history of Africa and the world at large. Leadership can be sweet, but always end so bitter than the taste of Mahogany roots especially when you struggle to remain on power by all mean. A word is enough for Goodluck Jonathan.

Please Download and Share the HawkVision Election Rigging Monitoring App Ahead of Elections here - http://hawkvisionapp.com/ The HawkVisionApp is a revolutionary election and social irregularity documenting mobile application that has been developed with priority to checkmate election rigging during the February 2015 general elections. The App has been presented and demonstrated to major political parties in Nigeria. The HawkVision application, which currently runs on android mobile devices, captures events (images and videos) real time and stores them with date and location stamp to a central secure server. These files can then be called up and the exact location, mapped using Google maps, with the data accessed with exact time and sender information. How it works: All Nigerians with Android phones download the App to their phones and ready to protect the voting process. At all polling locations, proactive citizen volunteers are urged to capture pictures and videos of any usual, unusual and suspicious activity including availability and access to grounds, behavior of the electorate, the police and electoral officers. Captured images and video only need to be uploaded through the App and the work is done. All images are automatically filed according to Polling booth location and stored with time stamp, geographical location and user phone number for confirmatory contact and possible follow-up. Access to the data is available to the media, government officials, the police, international monitors and other concerned individuals and groups wishing to investigate and review the captured electoral process. The HawkVision team diligently scours through the data to identify infractions and proceeds to investigate and refer such evidences to necessary authorities and organizations. The geographical and time and date stamp ensures authenticity and credibility of all evidence gathered. The HawkVisionApp further enables election monitoring in remote and terrorized locations like the Boko Haram plagued northeast where safety-conscious citizens are available and have downloaded the App and share to friends and family. Note; this application works on Android, iPad, and other devices including Techno Pads. Media-Links!