On 23 March 2007, a Freedom of Information Bill was sent to Nigerian President Olsegun Obasanjo that would have given Nigerians access to public records and documents. But in the aftermath of elections that were deemed “seriously flawed” by observers, the president declined to approve the bill, leaving many media rights activists disappointed.

The bill which had been with parliament since 1999 was not passed by both houses of the National Assembly until February, leaving Obasanjo with 30 days to sign it into law. Although it was consistent with President Obasanjo’s anti-corruption crusade and reform programs, the President “let it slide,” Media Rights Agenda (MRA) reported, a media freedom and freedom of expression NGO in Nigeria that had urged the president to pass the law.

The bill would have put Nigeria in the league of some 70 countries around the world that have such laws, and the fourth country in Africa, behind only South Africa, Angola, and Uganda.

“By signing the Freedom of Information bill, this government would have earned for itself credibility from the Nigerian people and the world by demonstrating its seriousness about its widely acclaimed fight to end corruption in Nigeria,” MRA told RAP 21. “The bill would have ended the culture of secrecy in government, which has allowed for corrupt practices and abuse of positions and privileges in government.”

Following the refusal, the bill will now be returned to the National Assembly, where it will be voted upon again. If passed by two-thirds majority of each house, it will take effect without the requirement of the president’s approval. But due to the remaining fears in the aftermath of violence and widespread disruption that marked the recent elections, the National Assembly may not be able to reconsider the bill and the process may be required to start from scratch again.

At least 200 people died in poll-related violence in recent weeks, and the European Union called the election a “charade.” Reporters Without Borders reported that Nigeria’s domestic intelligence agency performed commando-style raids on private television stations to control news and information in the lead up to the elections.

MRA is now focusing its campaign for access to information on the National Assembly before the assembly’s tenure expires on 29 May 2007.

“All hope is not lost now, we intend to focus our advocacy on lobbying the Nigerian National Assembly,” MRA said. “We are now working to ensure that they get the bill to pass by two-thirds majority so that it can become law regardless of the President’s failure to sign the bill into law.”

The organization has welcomed international support and says that those who are interested should contact ene@mediarightsagenda.org

The Executive Director of Media Rights Agenda, Mr Edetaen Ojo along with other colleagues met with the Nigerian President during the early hours of Friday, 27 April, below are Mr. Ojo’s notes on his meeting with the President:

President Olusegun Obasanjo says he will not sign the Freedom of Information Bill into Law in its present form because he has some “serious problems” with the Bill.

I met with the President, along with five other colleagues, in the early hours of this morning in his residence at the Presidential Villa in Abuja and asked him what his intentions were towards the Bill, which has been awaiting his assent since it was sent to him by the Clerk of the National Assembly on March 23, 2007 through his Special Adviser on National Assembly Matters, Senator Florence Ita-Giwa.

President Obasanjo said he had not received the Bill but that in any event, he will not sign it for two reasons. The first reason, according to him, is that he is opposed to the title of the Bill, which is “Freedom of Information”. He said the Bill should have been called the “Right to Information Bill” and that he had told members of the National Assembly this, but they refused to change the title and, instead, chose to retain the “Freedom of Information Bill”.

I told him that the National Assembly records showed that the Bill was sent to him on March 23, 2007 through Senator Ita-Giwa and that he may not have seen it because he has been busy with the electioneering campaigns.

I also told him that I did not think that the title of the proposed Law was that significant and that what I thought was of paramount importance was the text of the Bill and what it seeks to achieve. But he disagreed, saying the title of the Bill is very important as we can only talk of right to information and not freedom of information. He said the idea of “freedom of information” was simply imported “from somewhere”.

He asked me if I know that there are sensitive security information which cannot be released to the public. I told him that I believed that the Bill had adequately taken care of that concern as it excludes some categories of sensitive information, including national security information. Since he said he had not received the copy of the Bill sent to him from the National Assembly, I gave him a copy of the harmonized version of the Bill and pointed out to him the appropriate sections containing the exemptions.

On reading them, the President said he disagreed with Section 13(1) of the Bill which provides that “The head of a government or public institution may refuse to disclose any record, the disclosure of which may be injurious to the conduct of international affairs or the defence of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

President Obasanjo said the proposed Law only excluded from public access records which may be injurious to the defence of Nigeria , but did not also exclude records which may be injurious to the “security” of Nigeria as the defence and security of Nigeria mean different things.

I told the President that before the Bill was passed by the Senate, the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the Freedom of Information Bill, which worked on the Bill, had invited all law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies in Nigeria to make presentations or comments to it on the Bill and that although most of them responded, none of them objected to this provision. But he said it is because “none of them practices security at the level at which I practice it” and therefore, they did not understand the implications.

Besides, he said, he was completely opposed to Section 13(2) of the Bill, which provides: “However, in the interest of the public the court may override the refusal by the head of the government or public institution to disclose the information applied for.”

This President argued that this means that he can be compelled by a court to disclose any information another head of state may tell him in confidence.

He stressed that he would never sign the Bill as it is and asked me to take it back to the National Assembly for them to correct these “mistakes”.

I told him that since the National Assembly had already passed the Bill, it would not be possible for me to take the Bill back to them. I then suggested to him that if he had these concerns, he could send comments to the leadership of the National Assembly to express his reservation about these provisions and I was certain that the matter could be resolved at that level.

But the President refused, saying he would not do that. He said he did not see why the National Assembly was being difficult on the matter. According to him, although the National Assembly has the power to make Law, he as President had the right to make inputs. He said: “They should have come so that we can sit down and discuss these things.”

I told him that if those were his only concerns with the Bill, I did not think it was appropriate for him to “throw away the baby with the bath water” by refusing to sign it as there are a lot of positive aspects in the Bill that would help the Government achieve many of the things that he stands for.

But the President disagreed with this view, saying if the National Assembly overrides his veto, he will implement the Law, but that he would not sign the Bill into Law, unless the President-elect, Governor Umaru Yar’Adua, is willing to sign it into Law when he assumes office in 32 days’ time.