Just heard from the news on Radion Continental 102.3 FM, think GEJ is starting on right path

Hopefully someone can make the final document available to us in comparison with the initial draft so we can see how much damage was done by those rascals called legislators

what is foi bill? what is big about signing foi bill? is the bill what nigeria lacks? what abt the existing laws, what have they done to help us as nigerians? u can sign into laws 1 million more bills but as long as they are not active, it does not make sense.

If true, thank God. Now, does anyone have a copy of that Law? I mean I have searched and not found any copies for longest.

And you know, if the government official refuses to release the "needed info", you will inform our "egunje police" to arrest the man, no be so? Which police force sef? A new police force abi na this same old one wey stll dey deal with "bloody civilians"?

[size=14pt]Jonathan signs FoI Bill into law[/size]
On May 31, 2011 · In News
BY DANIEL IDONOR

ABUJA – AS promised by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Mr Ima Niboro that his principal would assent to the Freedom of Information Bill, FoI, as soon he receives the document from the National Assembly, President Goodluck Jonathan had since, Saturday, signed the bill into law.

In a statement, a Deputy Director of Information in the office of the Special Adviser, Mr Justus Abuah, said “President Goodluck Jonathan has signed the Freedom of Information Bill, 2011 into law”.

According to him, “the Bill which was passed by the outgoing National Assembly was conveyed to the Presidency on Friday, May 27, 2011. President Jonathan assented to it on Saturday, May 28”.

He said “the objective of the Act is to make public records and information more freely available and to also protect public records and information to the extent consistent with the public interest and the protection of personal privacy”.

“The Freedom of Information Act also seeks to protect serving public officers from any adverse consequences of disclosing certain kinds of official information without authorization, and to establish procedures for the achievement of these purposes”, the statement said.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/05/jonathan-signs-foi-bill-into-law/

[size=14pt]Fresh Air!!![/size]

This is a wonderful news. I am confident GEJ will do very well

We are in for 4 years of Astronomic Growth. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

Kudos to GEJ. Nigeria o ni baje!!!

hehehehe. Good one though!

Somebody help me!!
I'm hopelessly, helplessly, crazily, dangerously, 'shamelessly' in love with this GEJ.
One down, how many to go?

^ Get ready for more. This is just the beginning.

I pray that GEJ can totally bully the NASS in his usual quiet way, to sign the PIB.

The PIB will totally end Nigeria's slavery to the likes of Shell (never again will they be able order the deaths of our Saro Wiwa's). Added to that, it will shoot Nigeria's income up from $102billion to a tectonic plate moving $685billion. That is a 700% increase folks!

Go GEJ!

^ You're right bro. PIB is the next animal to be tamed. I can tell you as an insider that the IOC's are already re-aligning themselves for the coming of PIB. Let's go there.

Good move. Buh, i hope the implementation is not restricted. Wait a minute, what ought to happen to a law not signed into law before a tenure expires. For instance, if the foi bill is signed today, was thinking, wont it be the function of the seventh assembly to come up the discourse since the 6th republic expired 29th?

Can someone put up a copy of the bill please! I hope the courts will not end up being the one to determine the fate of the bill as is about to happen with the 2010 electoral act hurriedly signed into law only for several anomalies to be spoteddays later, for which even the PDP is asking the court to declare several part of that act as unconstitutional.

Even as I appreciate GEJ for making it obvious that He is in support of transparency in governance, however he should take a step further to ensuring that the bill/law works for nigeria and nigeria by strengthening the various government agencies that would ensure that defaulters of FOI request are dealth with in accordance with the law.

This is not a time for jubilation, rather a time to turn the screw of positive and constructive criticsm on GEJ, all the governors, council chairperson,etc!

God Bless Nigeria.

efisher:

^ You're right bro. PIB is the next animal to be tamed. I can tell you as an insider that the IOC's are already re-aligning themselves for the coming of PIB. Let's go there. 

As much as I agree with you that the PIB is the next godzilla to be fallen, i think the bill as it currently stands will not achieve much as the IOC have succeeded in making it a light weight and all the re-alignment currently being done by them is just to position them for the over $25bn GEJ led government has pledged to invest in that sector in the next 5-10years!

But again,having something is better than none and hopefully, with time,the act can be amended and if possible repealed when nigeria and nigerians' conscious legislators finally get into the NASS.

Again i know it is abit early, but can someone point out how local content act has impacted on nigerians outside of the oil sector? Any telecom, banking, pharm, etc companies engaging in massive recruitment/training, transfer of technical-know how to nigerians in line with the content of that act?

GEJ, GEJ, GEJ ka anyi ga-eso, ma ona eje eje, ma ona nana, GEJ ka anyi ga-eso!  

Next should be PIB. My only qualms is that the current PIB bill is a watered-down version from the original "hardcore" bill that gave the multinationals, brightening gray hairs. They seem to be relaxed about the current bill. I hope my country's benefits from the bill are still as originally as conceptualized.  

I'll wait to read the Full bill before I rejoice, but if it's truly a bill designed to provide access to Information for ALL Nigerians. I will be glad indeed.

I don't know what this passed bill looks like, I've not read it, But I hope this bill reflects the real original intent of the FOI bill crusaders. These civil society folks are the true heroes of the FOI bill, not politicans and oppressors who've blocking it's passage since democracy started.

Below are a few examples of objections raised by policy professionals and civil society groups in the course of passing this bill. Most are from 2008.

Senate Waters Down FOI Bill

By Eze Anaba   (Vanguard newspaper, Thursday, 25 September 2008)

The Senate Media and Information Committee on the Freedom of Information Bill has whittled some of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill in a way that would make it ineffective if it is eventually passed into law.

Most worrisome of the recommendation of the committee is the new section 2, which states that “Every citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has a legally enforceable right to, and shall, on application be given access to any information or record under the control of a government or public institution or private companies performing public functions, provided the disclosure of such information or release of such record(s) shall not compromise national security and the applicant shall have satisfied a Stare or Federal High Court of the need for the disclosure of such information or release of such record(s).


The caveat that the Senate Committee added to Section 2 of the report makes the FOI Bill dead on arrival if the Section is retained the way it is presently.


Sen. Ayogu Eze, Chairman, Senate Committee on Media and Communication

Observers said the amendment it reverses the traditional role of the courts within an access to information regime, which is limited to serving as the final appeal mechanism for resolving disputes related to all aspects, processes and procedures for seeking access to information and/or records held by public institutions.

“By reversing this role, as the Senate Committee proposes and making the courts become the first point of contact/decision making in any application for access to information, brings the court into the arena of conflict in the context of access to information related issues. By implication this takes away the possibility of the court being able to effectively play its traditional role of an unbiased umpire, in the events that either party resorts to judicial review of any decision taken by a public institution regarding an application for information in its custody.

“Moreover, following from the Senate Committee’s proposal, at the point of the applicant securing this leave of court to file an application for information, there are still a lot variables that would not have been clarified without the involvement of the public institution concerned, e.g., whether the information or record in question actually does exists and if so, whether it is in the custody of the particular public institution to which the application is being made?

Whether the content of record falls within any of the exemptions contained in the law, which may exclude the right of access of the applicant and this cannot be decided upon except the court is privy to the content of the particular record in question.

Additionally, this new proposal places a very heavy, needless, mandatory burden on the applicant by requiring him to, as a condition precedent to the consideration of his application, first secure leave of either a State or Federal High Court, after satisfying the presiding Judge on the need for him to have the information or record being requested for.

The applicant is also required at this stage, to convince the Court, that the information that he seeks would not in any way breach National Security, a point that is already covered by the exemption clause provided in Section 15 of the Bill,” the observer said.


2) Removal of the requirement that does away with the need for the applicant to justify his application for the information/ record.


Another very problematic amendment made by the Committee is the decision to delete the provision of Section 2(2) in draft FOI Bill which provides that “An applicant need not demonstrate any specific interest in the information or record being applied for.”


This provision which was contained in the draft Bill was in keeping with the international principles recognizing access to information as fundamental human right and so an applicant requesting information should not be required to either justify or give reasons why he needs the record or information that he is applying for. The provisions of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted by the Commission in Banjul , The Gambia in October 2002 reinforce this position.

This declaration stipulates amongst other things that;

1. Public bodies hold information not for themselves but as custodians of the public good and everyone has a right to access this information

2. The right to information shall be guaranteed by law in accordance with the following principles:

“everyone has the right to access information held by public bodies;

“everyone has the right to access information held by private bodies which is necessary for the exercise or protection of any right; “ any refusal to disclose information shall be subject to appeal to an independent body and/or the courts;

Consequently for the FOI Bill to meet the internationally accepted benchmark in this regard, this provision should retained in the Bill by the Senate, otherwise the Bill would fall short of the basic essential requirement of a good FOI law.


3) Extension of the time limit for considering applications both in the first instance and when an extension of time is granted.

The Committee in its report also proposed an amendment to Sections 5(1) and 7(1) of the Bill by extending the number of days for considering any application for information from 7 days to 30 working days in the first instance and Ninety working days, in cases where the head of the public institution decides that an extension of the time limit for considering an application is appropriate.

The net effect of a combined reading of the provisions of Sections 5(1) and 7(1) is that the total period for considering an application for information under the Bill is now 120 working days. This means that an applicant after crossing the hurdle of getting leave of court to bring an application for information to a public institution still has to wait for another 6 months before knowing if his application would be granted.


If you add the time it took for the applicant to secure leave of court to bring his application, then it may all come up to between one to two years period.

The chilling effect that this time line would have on the effective enforcement of a right of access to information under such a difficult framework should be glaring to all, more particularly our distinguished senators, except if the plan is to deny the generality of Nigerians an effective legal regime on access to information.


4) removal of the need for the public officer to give written notice to the applicant on whether or not his application was successful.


By deleting entirely, the provision of Section 5(1)(a) which makes it mandatory for a public officer to give the applicant written notice as to whether or not access to the information or record being applied for would be given, the Senate committee has effectively created a system that strengthens denial of access than approval.


This is because the implication of this amendment is that the public official is not under an obligation to give the applicant any notification that would provide him with the reasons why his application was denied. This in turn puts the possibility of effective judicial review of such decisions in jeopardy as the court would have no evidence before it on the reasons that weighed in the mind of the public official at the time he took that decision.


Additionally, it allows the public official sufficient time to cook up sufficient justification for the refusal that might not have actually been the case at the time he took the decision.


The cumulative effect of all this, is that it creates room for the public official to act with impunity and leaves a dis-satisfied applicant without any possibility of securing any remedy whatsoever.


Additionally, it is also instructive to note that deleting the provision of Section 5(1) also makes the entire provision of Section 8 unworkable and irrelevant, bearing in mind that the provision of Section


8(1) to (3) is predicated on the existence of the provision of Section 5(1).

Consequently a very grave lacuna now exists which can only be corrected by re-introducing the provision of Section 5(1) back into the Bill.

5) Reduction in the term of punishment prescribed for public officers found guilty of destruction or falsification of records.


Pursuant to what seems like a script to effectively frustrate the establishment of a robust regime on access to information, the members of the Senate Committee on Media and Information also deemed it fit to tinker with the provision of Section 11 of the Bill, by reducing the minimum term of punishment for destruction or falsification of records by public officers before they are released to members of the public from 3 years to 1 year.

6) Removal of all public interest override provisions contained in all the exemption clauses in the bill. Nothing gives more evidence of the glaring intention of the members of the Committee to give Nigerians an FOI Law that is bereft of critical content and safeguards guaranteeing adequate balance of the various contending interests in the implementation of this law than the surgical operation that they did on the Bill by carefully expunging virtually all the public interest override provisions in the Bill, save for the one in Section 19(4) dealing with Third party protection.


The full import of this exercise undertaken by the members of the Committee is that the Exemption clauses in the Bill are now sacrosanct and no longer subject to any public interest override and by so doing the Bill falls short of this globally accepted critical requirement for any legislation before it can qualify as a good FOI law.


The fact that this a serious derogation from the international principles on FOI can also be seen from the declaration jointly issued on 19 December 2006, by Ambeyi Ligabo, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Miklos Haraszti, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media; Ignacio J. Alvarez, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression; and Faith Pansy Tlakula, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information at the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, where-in they all stated that;

 “Exceptions to the right of access should be set out clearly in these policies and access should be granted unless (a) disclosure would cause serious harm to a protected interest and (b) this harm outweighs the public interest in accessing the information.

7) Short time limit for filing an appeal for judicial review where an application is refused.


While the Senators were quite comfortable with extending the time limit within which public institutions may consider applications for information and records, they were ill at ease to consider extending the provision of Section 24 of the draft Bill, regarding he time limit within which a dis-satisfied applicant could file for judicial review of a decision of the head of a public institution refusing his application for information or record.

Consequently an applicant has only thirty days within which he can bring an application before a court to have a decision refusing him access to the record or information requested for, overturned, failing which he would be considered as being out of time to bring such an application. Except in special circumstances where the Court deems it fit to extend this time limit.


Deletion of section 31(2). Dealing with whistle blower protection

The distinguished Senate Committee members also deleted the provision of Section 31(2) in its entirety. The importance of the provision of this Subsection cannot be over-emphasized, more particularly when considered in the context of Nigeria ’s on-going anti-corruption crusade.


Without this all-important protection for whistleblowers in the public service, the various anti-corruption agencies (EFCC and ICPC) would loose access to very valuable information and evidence that is currently provided by this group of people in the public service and this would negatively affect the effectiveness of the anti-corruption crusade.

Open Letter to the Senate Committee on Information and Media on the Freedom of Information Bill 2007

Senator Ayogu Eze

Chair, Committee on Information and Media
The Senate
National Assembly Complex
Abuja

Dear Senator Ayogu Eze,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Freedom of Information Coalition (FOIC), an alliance of over 200 civil society organizations and thousands of Nigerian citizens campaigning for the enactment of a Freedom of Information Act in Nigeria .

The FOIC has been inundated with enquiries, observations and complaints since the report of your committee, recently submitted for the consideration of the Senate, became public knowledge through media publications.

As a vanguard organization, working for the enactment of a freedom of information law since the inception of civil rule in 1999, we take it as our historic responsibility to formally bring to your attention the aggregate of opinions so far expressed over the objectionable amendments made to the bill by your Committee.


The summary of our collective observation is that the content of the bill that your committee is proposing for enactment as FOI law, fundamentally defeats the purpose for which such a law is needed in the first instance, while completely negating the essence of the right to know.

The underlining principles of openness, accountability, transparency, good governance and popular participation which are supposed to underpin any Freedom of Information law include:

The right of access to information is a fundamental right of citizens and other members of the public.  The exercise of this right should not require individuals to demonstrate a specific interest in the information.

There should be a presumption of openness and this principle establishes a presumption that all information held by public bodies should be subject to disclosure.  This presumption may be set aside only in very limited circumstances. Where a public authority seeks to deny access to information, it should bear the burden of justifying the refusal at every stage.  The public authority must show that the information it is withholding is covered by the exceptions allowed by the law.

Requests for information should be processed rapidly and fairly. The law should provide for strict time limits for the processing of requests and require that any refusals be accompanied by substantive written reasons.

One would labour to find any of the above principles in your proposed draft. Few examples will suffice.

Section 2 only guarantees the right of a citizen to request for information to the extent that it would not jeopardize national security and even at that, such a citizen would first have to obtain the leave of a court of law before making such request. In essence, a rural dweller desirous of information on road contracts in his or her community would have to secure the services of a legal practitioner, travel to the city to depose to an affidavit that the information would not affect national security and undergo other physical and financial rigours of court processes even without being sure that he/she would get the nod of the court to proceed.   This will obviously not be a right, but a privilege and one that can only be exercised by the rich!

And supposing he/she does and now proceeds to request for the needed information? Whereas the original FOI bill as passed by the previous National Assembly, requires the head of the institution to which the request is directed to respond within 10 working days and state reasons for not providing information, should that be the case, your draft extends the period to 30 working days and states that the head of the institution need not state reasons for denial of information. Of course, where reasons are not stated, there can be no material for a court of law to review the decision.

In addition to the above, your draft completely removes the public interest override in all its exemption clauses while also removing the protection granted to whistle blowers.    

This kind of FOI bill is not worth the name and we hereby serve you notice that we completely reject it.

We urge you to withdraw it in the public interest and revert to the original bill or come up with a new draft.

Sincerely,
Lanre Arogundade

(For and on behalf of the Freedom of Information Coalition)

MRA Rejects Senate Committee Recommendations on FOI Bill

Lagos, Monday, September 29, 2008:  Media Rights Agenda (MRA) today announced its rejection of the recommendations of the Senate’s Information Committee on the Freedom of Information Bill, saying if passed as proposed it would be the worst access to information law in the world and would bring Nigeria to ridicule.

In a statement issued in Lagos, MRA argued that the Committee’s proposals make nonsense of the Bill as they defeat the essence of a freedom of information legislation.  It added that many of the proposals in the Committee’s report evidence a deep-seated contempt and disdain by the legislators for the people they are supposed to represent and serve.  

It cited as an example of such proposals Section 2 of the Bill, as amended by the Committee, which now provides as follows:

“Every citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, has a legally enforceable right to, and shall, on application be given access to any information or record under the control of a government or public institution or private companies performing public functions,

provided the disclosure of such information or release of such record(s) shall not compromise national security and that the applicant shall have satisfied  a State or Federal High Court  of the need for the disclosure of such information or release of such  record(s).” [Emphasis supplied]

Denouncing the introduction of this provision into the Bill as absurd, MRA’s Executive Director, Mr. Edetaen Ojo, said:  “this provision will place an enormous burden on citizens who would be required to first go to court to justify why they require any piece of information, record or document; satisfy the court that the information would not undermine national security and obtain the court’s approval before even applying to the relevant public institution for the information, record or document”.

He added:  “Anyone vaguely familiar with the Nigerian judicial system knows that it could easily take years for a citizen to even go through this first hurdle, in addition to the unwarranted costs such a citizen would have to incur to engage a lawyer and pay court fees just to be able to apply for information from a government institution, no matter how routine or harmless the information required.  The net effect would be that no one would use such a law!”

The organization contended that contrary to a body of international jurisprudence which clearly uphold the right of access to information as a fundamental human right which every citizen is entitled to, the Senate Committee had by this proposed modification made it a privilege.

It said the Committee’s recommendations would encumber rather than facilitate access to information, adding that the proposals appear intended to block implementation of an access to information regime in Nigeria.  

MRA argued that the excuse by the Committee Chair, Senator Ayogu Eze, that the obnoxious provisions were introduced into the bill to “ensure that nobody can use it to hold the country to ransom” is untenable.  

It said:  “About 86 countries around the world now have freedom of information laws and many more countries are moving speedily towards adopting such laws.  The National Assembly has no excuse for Nigeria being left behind on this issue.  

It is does not require scientific or technological advancement to pass a decent freedom of information law; it does not take enormous resources and so the excuse that we cannot afford it does not apply; all it requires is a commitment by elected public officers to put their people at the centre of our democracy rather than the tendency to serve narrow and selfish interests.”
For further information, Please contact:

Ayode Longe
Senior Programme Officer
Media Rights Agenda, Lagos

Omo_Tier1:

As much as I agree with you that the PIB is the next godzilla to be fallen, i think the bill as it currently stands will not achieve much as the IOC have succeeded in making it a light weight and all the re-alignment currently being done by them is just to position them for the over $25bn GEJ led government has pledged to invest in that sector in the next 5-10years!

But again,having something is better than none and hopefully, with time,the act can be amended and if possible repealed when nigeria and nigerian conscious legislator finally get into the NASS.

Where you not the person arguing stringently that the PIB was meant to enslave Nigerians to foreign powers?
Abeg gerout jare!
Allow serious peeps that know their facts discuss.

Go GEJ!

Link for my post above : http://www.foicoalition.org/foi_bill/index.htm?40,12

“Every citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, has a legally enforceable right to, and shall, on application be given access to any information or record under the control of a government or public institution or private companies performing public functions,

provided the disclosure of such information or release of such record(s) shall not compromise national security and that the applicant shall have satisfied  a State or Federal High Court  of the need for the disclosure of such information or release of such  record(s).” [Emphasis supplied]

I'm particularly worried about he quote above, what is National Security?

Who determines what falls under such designation?

Also, why do we need to go to court to access public information?

Shouldn't the burden be on Public agencies to provide them freely and make them accessible?

And in the case of a more "guarded" information, shouldn't a simple application suffice? afterall the people are part of "Government" right?

Another uwais report in the making.
Arrrrraaaannnnt Nonnnseeense!

Kilode?!:

Link for my post above : http://www.foicoalition.org/foi_bill/index.htm?40,12

I'm particularly worried about he quote above, what is National Security?

Who determines what falls under such designation?

Also, why do we need to go to court to access public information?

Shouldn't the burden be on Public agencies to provide them freely and make them accessible?

And in the case of a more "guarded" information, shouldn't a simple application suffice? afterall the people are part of "Government" right?

That is a constant in all freedom of speech charters the World over. It is an area that can never ever be strictly defined, but is rather left to the discression of the Pres, SSS and other security agencies.
The internet presents a perfect example of why that area can never be defined. A few short years ago, it would have been possible to target legislation at letters, but who knew about emails?

Beaf:

That is a constant in all freedom of speech charters the World over. It is an area that can never ever be strictly defined, but is rather left to the discression of the Pres, SSS and other security agencies.
The internet presents a perfect example of why that area can never be defined. A few short years ago, it would have been possible to target legislation at letters, but who knew about emails?

Which is why people like you who care about freedom and liberty should be able to scrutinize the actions of politicians and make sure they do not hide their evil acts and corrupt intentions behind "National Security" excuses.

I'm all for progressive development, but we must see the progress in intents and actions.






[slightly off-topic] BTW, the SSS should be scrapped IMO, we don't need Palace guards and a Nazi inspired Gestapo-like police with secret criminal investigation powers. All na oppression.

. . .and while at it, GEJ should scrap that Council of State nonsense we have, making sensitive National decisions here, here and here with IBB, OBJ, Buhari, Gowon, Abdusalami and other private citizens and unelected/rejected former leaders thereby giving them control over so much decision making powers is wrong for our democracy. It's like rewarding criminality. All na oppression.

^^^
Maybe I should open a different Topic for this vexing Council Of State and SSS nonsense sef.


I do not envy GEJ, the guy get plenty work to do.

^
I think a thread on such matters is well in order. Your analysis is spot on bro.

This is a copy of the 2007 Bill . . . .http://www.foicoalition.org/PDF%20Files/FOI_BILL_Harmonised_Version.pdf

Anyone know where I can get a copy of the 2011 Bill??

Journalists seem quite excited by the signing of the FOI bill, but Nigerian journalists (with a few notable exception eg Abati) tend not to be very smart.

[size=14pt]FoI bill: Jonathan’s assent sign-posts good governance – NGE[/size]
On May 31, 2011 · In News

The Nigerian Guild of Editors, NGE, has described the assent to the Freedom of Information, FoI bill, by President Goodluck Jonathan, as a fulfillment of his commitment to openness, transparency, accountability and good governance.

In a statement by the President of the Guild, Mr. Gbenga Adefaye, the Guild said that the signing of the FoI Bill into law has expanded the frontiers of press freedom for Africa’s most vibrant press.

He said: ” The Nigerian Guild of Editors, NGE, has received the news of the assent of President Goodluck Jonathan to the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill with gratitude to a president who has kept his words.

“President Jonathan had, during the last Presidential debate, made a pubic commitment to sign the FoI bill into law once presented to him by the National Assembly as a personal commitment to openness, transparency, accountability and good governance. President Jonathan has really started well with this sign-post for good governance.”

“By signing the FoI bill into law, the President has more than anyone else empowered the citizens to participate in the governance of their own affairs. The people can now legitimately seek public information, corroborate their facts and make useful suggestions towards achieving greater good for the majority. With access to information, citizens can fight corruption and closet government and confront the few who misappropriate our resources to themselves alone”

“For the media, the signing of the FoI law has expanded the frontiers of press freedom for Africa’s most vibrant press. No more will it be permitted for the journalists to hurry to press with half truth and misinformation when they can officially verify their facts.”

“While the NGE congratulates every Nigerian for this all important citizen’s law and commend the out-going National Assembly for freeing the democratic space for citizens’ involvement in our democratic adventure, we call on everyone to use the law, responsibly.”

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/05/foi-bill-jonathan%E2%80%99s-assent-sign-posts-good-governance-nge/

Beaf:

Where you not the person arguing stringently that the PIB was meant to enslave Nigerians to foreign powers?
Abeg gerout jare!
Allow serious peeps that know their facts discuss.

Go GEJ!

I still stand by that comment, if what was revealed in the wikileaks diplomatic cables, the strange undeniable fact that the outgoing NASS assembly does not know the true version of the PIB they are actually considering in the HOR and Senate! This same call was also raised by the out-going chairman of the HOR committee on rules and buisness -Hon ita enang on the floor of the house as the bill was been debated.

If not for the stupidity of PDP, why should  important bills such as PIB, FOI, etc take more than six to eight months to be pass into law? Why should IOC be allowed too much room to influence the bill the way they have done? Yes thier inputs are required to frame the bill but it should only be seen as suggestions and not what the bill should be!

If you think IOC gaining much of the $25bn of tax payer's money is not slavery then there something wrong somewhere.

My earlier submission that whatever the content of the PIB is for now should passed into law is simply based on the premise that the incoming NASS with vibrant opposition will be in a better position to restructure the act to favour nigerians compared to the shambolic work and injustice the out-going rogue PDP legislators have done to the present PIB bill.

Again why rejoice when you have not had the chance to see and peruse for yourself the version of the FOI as signed into law? Same happened to labour after the new minimum wage act was signed into law only for them to start crying foul that the version signed into law was different from the one they had; with several amendments that appear to give the state governors loop holes in not paying the 18,000naira minimum wage! and lo, Bauchi state government has taken advantage of one of those loop holes to offer the civil servants in the state a miserly 11,500naira minimum wage.

Get it straight, I 'm not your 'follow follow the master type', who rely on 'invented facts' to butress thier blind folded followership.

wonderful move - but just like with everything else in Nigeria - the key is implementation and sustenance. Time will tell if this will end up being another pointless bill

Very good.

Any news about the PIB?

We need to see the bill and the passed provisions.
It's one thing to pass a bill named as such, it is another thing to have watered down the povisions.

Osama10:

Any news about the PIB?

Nwogu just announced on NTA that the senate will pass it after the next 7 days. Fingers crossed, it'll be a done deal in under a month.