06 Aug 2006 |
|
The False Information Bill We shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts: for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments" - Woodrow Wilson, Joint Session of Congress, April 2, 1917. THE Federal Government has reportedly forwarded to the National Assembly, a bill that it may consider after its return from recess, which on the surface seems targeted at ensuring national security, but which closely examined is at best supernumerary, and in its parts, objectionable, for being a veiled attempt at bridging the citizen's right to tell and the people's right to know. The proposed law is titled "Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2006". It seeks to prevent terrorism and give effect to international conventions on terrorism to which Nigeria is signatory. Terrorist activities in this context would include the kidnapping of oil workers, and damages to oil installations. It is thus obvious that the proposed law is a product of expediency, given the volatile and unmanageable crisis in the Niger Delta where ethnic militias and angry youths have been sabotaging the oil and gas industry. Now and then, these groups kidnap oil company officials, they threaten to blow up oil stations, they issue ultimatums to government and actually demand and collect ransoms; consistently they have humiliated the Nigerian government forcing it to the negotiating table on many occasions. To deny that this is terrorism simpliciter is to beg the issue. And without a doubt, if a solution is not found to the crisis in the Niger Delta, to the descent of that region into gross anarchy, it would only take a simple incident of gross proportions, to ignite that entire region, or place Nigeria in a difficult situation. It took only the provocative abduction of two Israeli soldiers by the Hezbollah, for example, for Israel to launch its rockets against Lebanon, and for the entire Middle East to be trapped in a proxy war which is tragically disproportionate, and most felt in terms of the humanitarian crisis that it has now created. The militant groups in the Delta are not apologetic with their ideological rhetoric, nor have they shown any respect for the state security system which they routinely humiliate in combat on the open seas. Is the solution to this a new law? The best response to the Niger Delta crisis, or terrorism in any part of Nigeria is not the enactment of new laws. There are enough extant laws which can be used to protect the state against any form of internal aggression or sabotage, or as expressed in the proposed terrorism law, "actions that may seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental, political, constitutional, economic, or social structures of a country or an international organization". But why has the government been unable to give effect to such laws? Why has it always failed to ensure national security, and provide for the citizen, an enabling environment in which lives and property can be secure, and the dignity of the human person can be protected? What is at play in all cases of unresolved aggression be they in the mangrove forests or the savannah region, is the failure of the Nigerian state to enforce the rule of law; as well as its loss of moral authority. Government sadly, is the biggest law breaker in the land. It is in the eyes of ordinary Nigerians, the biggest terrorist. When the laws of the land are routinely flouted by men and women of power, with a sitting Chief Justice of the Federation having once had cause to lament this, ordinary people are emboldened to take the laws into their hands. It does not matter what laws are enacted to protect national security, the key to the crisis that government seeks to address lies in the area of good governance. The fears of all marginalised groups in society would have to be addressed, the specters of injustice and inequities in our land would have to be eliminated or reduced; government must also strengthen its capacity to enforce the rule of law. Otherwise, a "Prevention of Terrorism Act" would not deter those who are determined to challenge the Nigerian state and question its arrangements. The lesson here lies in the seeming intractability of the Niger Delta situation. The Federal Government has tried all the tricks at its disposal including military action in the Delta, the arrest and trial of militia leaders, and before now, the murder of leaders of the rebellion. But for every Ogoni Twelve that is killed, the anger of the people merely reaches lower depths, for every Isaac Adaka Boro that is tried, thousands rise to fill the space and continue the struggle. So it is as well, I suppose, with the religious terrorists, those who use religion as shield for causing mayhem. There are too many Nigerians today who are angry and frustrated; they are seeking escape in anti-social behaviour, in open revolt against the regime of law and order. Nigerian governments must seek to work from cause to effect. Every government that comes along merely manages to avoid the truths, and so we live the lie in this land. We postpone the evil day all the time. The second issue that has been thrown up by this proposed bill is the inclusion therein of stringent sanctions for the dissemination of false information that may intimidate the government or persons. This is familiar, but ironic. Whoever inserted this clause in the proposed law has given expression to the well-known aversion of the Nigerian state to any system that allows a free flow of information. This section of the bill dealing with what may be called "opinion terrorism" is a restatement of the Official Secrets Act, a colonial relic under which civil servants are forbidden from divulging information to the public; the anachronistic law on sedition which seeks to protect government officials from any form of criticism, and such other laws through which the Nigerian state has been run as a kind of secret society, an exclusive club whose affairs non-initiates are not allowed to pry into. It is also an unfair abridgment of the right to the freedom of expression. Who is defining false information? Is information false only when it is considered intimidating by government officials? There are existing laws and conventions which set a limit on the freedom of expression. It seems that the intent of the sponsors of the bill here is to prevent anyone, journalists and non-journalists alike from prying into the affairs of government. They want to be protected from any form of scrutiny. Secrecy in official circles serves only the purpose of the men of power: it allows them to do what they like with impunity. Secrecy allows corruption to thrive. It shuts out the people from their own government. Besides, the interpretation of "false information" is so value-laden it is open to abuse. The irony is that since 1999, concerned groups in civil society have been pushing for the enactment of a Freedom of Information Law, the purpose of which is to further empower the citizen to ask questions, raise issues, investigate governmental activities, and strengthen the accountability of public institutions. A Freedom of Information Law seeks to create an open society in which government can be truly accountable to the people. Both the Federal Government has not shown much enthusiasm about this law. The Bill was passed by the House of Representatives but the Senate has been sitting on it for more than a year. And now, would the same National Assembly which has been so slow in passing a law that would deepen democracy, now accept a law on false information? The reference to false information is in fact curious. How can anyone provide true information, if there is no law that guarantees access to information? Under the Terrorism Act as proposed, and even under existing laws, Nigerians cannot demand access to government records, because that would amount to intimidation; they cannot seek to compel government or its agents to act appropriately; that too would be taken as an act of terrorism! Through this law, government's design is to intimidate the public into silence. And yet what we need is a law that protects whistle-blowers. Unfortunately, there may be a meeting of minds between the National Assembly and the Federal Government on the question of access to information. This National Assembly has been asking media correspondents covering its activities to submit, for the purpose of re-accreditation, tax clearance certificates of their employers, a profile of the media establishment and corporate status. The National Assembly wants to be sure that the people covering its activities are not "ghost journalists" or "miscreants". Is the National Assembly no longer representing all Nigerians, ghosts and miscreants inclusive? It makes no sense whatsoever when the National Assembly or its members seek to exclude certain categories of Nigerians from knowing about its affairs. Even ghosts and miscreants have the right to know what goes on in the legislature not to talk of journalists. Request for tax clearance papers, tax regulations etc. have also always been used by intolerant governments to intimidate the media. And let no one misunderstand the argument for a Freedom of Information Law. It is not an open-ended regime of information flow to the extent that there are limits prescribed even in the draft bill: court records, war records, the country's economic secrets, personal information dealing with the right to privacy: all these may be off-limits to information hunters. But when the Nigerian government expresses concern about the flow of information, this is not where its interest lies, but how to protect government officials from being asked to give proper account of their stewardship. And that under any guise whatsoever, is unacceptable. As for terrorism, oh yes, it is condemnable but a special law to address the evil that it poses must not become a subterfuge for avoiding the truth about the fault-lines of the Nigerian arrangement. Daughter Of The East Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, former Minister of Finance, until recently, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chair of the Economic Intelligence Team has been praised most appropriately for the courage and character she exhibited by resigning her appointment as a member of the Obasanjo cabinet. Her exit can be compared to that of a star football striker leaving the field of play to loud ovation from the galleries. Okonjo-Iweala was clearly one of the stars of the Obasanjo government, the Ronaldinho of the team, focused, gifted and committed. You may not agree with her World Bank theories, or her dollarised pay packet, but no one could fault her passion and competence. In her letter of resignation, she had spoken about going to be with her family. But of course, that is mere diplomatese. I mean, it is not as if she is rushing back to Washington to breast-feed a new baby, or baby sit. She is on record as having once said: "But people don't understand that I don't do this job in spite of my children. Rather they are my inspiration." In the past few months, there have been signs of great divisions at the top in Abuja, with Okonjo-Iweala showing up on the wrong side of the politics of power play. First was the matter about the commission that was allegedly paid during the debt repayment process. Second was the Third Term agenda and Okonjo-Iweala's opposition to it. Third, was her redeployment to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where she took one look at the state of affairs and complained about fraud and disorganisation! The final blow came when she was removed as Chairperson of the Economic Intelligence Team behind her back, at a time when she was away in London. She just couldn't take it anymore. She once told an interviewer: "Why am I going through some tricky situation? Why am I not with my children in Washington? When I see vested interests still trying to undermine me, I know it means I'm successful. When I manage to convince one person to change, I think this is why I am here. The ability to change things is a powerful incentive". So, really, is Okonjo-Iweala leaving because there is now a shift of emphasis in Abuja? Now that elections are approaching, is Abuja less enthusiastic about change? We may never know the full story. But Okonjo-Iweala must have learnt some useful lessons about how her country is managed and the character of Nigerians in the corridors of power. By walking away from it all, something which typical Nigerians would never do, she sends a strong message which will remain the subject of analysis beyond May 2007 as a comment on the Obasanjo government and its internal dynamics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.