Opinion
Putting FOI Bill In Proper Perspective
The axiom that government remains the media’s fair weather friend in our climate cannot find better platform for demonstration than the macabre drama now staged around the refusal by the National Assembly to pass the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill into law. But this was expected. In any closed, corruption-endemic system, no attempt to subvert the status-quo in whatsoever guise would succeed like a duck on water. Without meeting resistance from the forces that have kept the people in bondage.
Thus, the FOI bill is perceived by the National Assembly, at least going by its original intendments, as a booby-trap capable of torpedoing their present stewardship and their future political careers. As the Senate power probe, and Patricia Etteh’s house renovation saga clearly showed, there are bundles of shady transactions wrapped in “official secrecy” at the National Assembly, that pass without any mention in the media. Is it therefore, a thing of surprise that the FOI bill spent seven years at the National Assembly under the Obasanjo civilian administration alone and when it was eventually passed for assent six months to the end of that administration, the president refused his assent, citing security reasons and the title of the bill as excuses for doing so?
One of the cardinal objectives of the FOI bill is to create an enabling atmosphere for the entrenchment and sustenance of accountability in public office. Its basic thrust is to facilitate unfettered access to statutorily unrestricted information in the public domain, empowering the public and civil society groups to hold officials accountable as well as creating opportunities for the people to be judge of whether or not their government officials are good stewards of public funds. It must be noted that accountability in public office can only be guaranteed when there is openness, transparency and “a-people-carrying-along.” disposition in the process of governance. This requires elected or appointed officials to, from time to time; inform the people without padding, equivocation or prevarication, how much resources they receive on behalf of the people, how and on what they spend such resources, and how much is left in the public till.
Commonsensically, openness which is the oxygen that sustains a democracy, is an important first step in holding governments accountable for how they manage the people’s money. Information is the fuel which powers the engine of democracy, and the media are the conducting valves that transport this fuel to every part of the engine. And since the media trade in information, they ipso facto occupy a central position in creating and sustaining an open society. It is with this realisation that the framers of the Constitution enshrined in section 22, that. “The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people.” Often construed as the fourth arm of government after the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, the Press is entwined with demoncracy like Siamese twins. This largely lies in the capability of the latter to keep the other arms of government honest and intoning in the public interest.
An obvious stumbling block in the path of the media to consummate their constitutional mandate to uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people is the battery of anti-progressive statutes that restrict access to information and hobble the drive to hold public officials accountable. These satutes, like the archaic official Secrets Act, promote secrecy and corruption in public offices, even as they hamstring the media from fulfilling that which the constitution had empowered them to do.
In such a scenario, the necessity for an enabling law to guarantee unhindered access to information held by public offices becomes imperative. It is for this that the Media Rights Agenda (MRA) partnered other civil society groups to sponsor an FOI bill in 2000 for passage in the National Assembly. However, it is a sad testament that the journey of the bill at the two-chambered legislature, with no fewer than three different versions presented at four different times, has now assumed a life of its own.
Whereas, it is apposite to note that the media’s roles in a democracy is to serve as an optical lens or microscope of information through which the peope know everything those exercising their mandate or consent (will) to govern, do on their behalf while in office.
This is why Prof. Ralph Akinfeleye said this of the tug-of-war at the National Assembly over the FOI bill before it: “It is very clear in the Constitution that the Press is not given the power of trial of public office holders on the pages of newspapers, magazines, on radio or television.
The constitutional duty given to the press is that of monitoring and making public officers accountable to the people at all times.”
That the media are championing the cause to see the FOI bill passed is justified. Saying this, the FOI bill should not be mistaken for a media bill, even though it bears much saliency with the spiralling web of media functionality in the information society of the 21st century. In its undiluted form. FOI defines the process by wich information or record under the control of a governmental agency or body is accessed. In other words, it is a legally enforceable right of a citizen to request information held by a governmental body.
Laconically, the application or use of the FOIA is not restricted to journalism practitioners (media people) as the uninformed are wont to believe completely and argue blindly.
This is the reason civil society organisations view it as an elixir for good governance in society and see those opposing the passage of the bill as enemies of development who have something to hide.
With the benefit of historical hindsight, the ill-fated Nigerian FOI bill resonates with fervour, and underscores the fact that freedom of information acts (FOIAs) had never been won anywhere without a sustained and protracted fight. Even in the United State from which the FOIA model was exported to many countries, it came about after much pressure from media groups and organisations, consumer associations. etc.
Spanning 20 years from 1945 to 1965. The American Congress passed the FOIA in 1966.
The law (FOIA) gave the public the right to discover what the government was up to, with certain exceptions. It sets out the basic instructions to follow to get information which if improperly withheld by a governmental body would warrant a court of law to compel such governmental body to disclose or release what is sought from it. There are, however, some exceptions which may not be disclosed, especially those concerning national security.
Notable exceptions include trade secrets, law enforcement and investigation files (reports), geological surveys or maps of oil wells and locations, details of troops movement during military operations, trade secrets. Personal medical records,, materials exempted by statutes, inter and/or intra-agency memoranda, et al. The Nigerian model stipulated a three years jail term without an option of fine for any public office holders who violate the law for materials not exempted.
Being a nation in desperate need to develop rapidly to meet its 2020 developmental aspirations. Nigeria cannot afford to continue to play politics with the FOI bill’s passage into law, passage of the bill is not only a dialectical necessity but a national imperative, particularly when it is considered that lack of transparency and openness in governance is the bane of effective budget implementation and tracking, service delivery and thus, rapid development of the nation.
The passage of the FOI bill into law is in the best interest of Nigeria. The problem of Nigeria may not be that of an FOI Act meant to facilitate the process of ridding the nation of what is the greatest impediment to advancement and to make it torrid for the apostles of corruption to practice their craft.
The real problem of Nigeria lies with the very people being dignified as leaders in the dark rooms of public offices and corrupting the art of civil governance. They are the very people fighting with every ounce of their might to keep the floodlights of transparency and openness permanently switched off in the land. In fact, they are the enemies of development who have been working against the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Alemu Wrote in from Port Harcourt.
Dennis Alemu
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
-
News4 days agoRSIPA Outlines Plans To Boost Investors’ Confidence …China Applauds Fubara As Listening Gov
-
Niger Delta2 days ago
Oborevwori Condoles Diri, Family, Bayelsans Over Passing Ewhrudjakpo’s Passing
-
Politics2 days ago
Alleged Tax Law Changes Risk Eroding Public Trust — CISLAC
-
Politics2 days ago
DEFECTION: FUBARA HAS ENDED SPECULATIONS ABOUT POLITICAL FUTURE — NWOGU
-
Maritime2 days agoImo Category C Victory: NIMASA Staff Host Executive Management Party
-
Politics2 days ago
HILDA DOKUBO ASSUMES CHAIRMANSHIP, DENIES FACTIONS IN RIVERS LP
-
Rivers2 days ago
Group Urges LGA Chairmen To Prioritise Accountability, People-Centred Governance
-
Niger Delta2 days ago
We Stalled Projects Inauguration To Honour Ewhrudjakpo – Ogbuku … As Oil Minster, PANDEF Eulogize Late D’Gov
